AP claims Russia knew about the chemical attack ahead of time

[Glorious Leader]

Trump has been complaining about the lying media and their fake news, since before the election. This is the guy who claimed to have evidence of Obama's fake birth certificate. Called everything from unemployment numbers to the meaning of the word relationship, fake news. Trump didn't turn anything around, he doubled down and made a former Breitbart executive as an integral part of his cabinet.

Trump is part of the establishment. He has been going to NYC elites diners since he was a kid. Think about the point you are trying to make, about a guy who has been in the media for over 30 years. A former reality TV star... a celebrity Wrestlemania guest... that clip of Trump moter boating Guliany a decade ago, wasn't at some rebellion... that was NYC mayors lunch... that Trump didn't crash, wasn't just invited to, but actually performed a skit on. This is how bizarre Trump's antiestablishment rhetoric... Rick Perry as DOE head, instead of a nuclear physicist? An Exxon CEO as Secretary of State? How rebellious... Way to stick it to the... man?

Its even more egregious then that. Trump donated money to the clintons. They went to his wedding. He literally helped them buy their home. He was connected to his supposed establishment opponent for fucking decades.

[Zenfoldor]

These idiots are shouting "fake news" for anything that isn't coming from Breitbart, InfoWars, or Fox News. They haven't got the foggiest clue what fake news is.

Fake news is any media that isn't properly sourced, yet presented as if it were. This includes media that is intentionally misleading, ie: click-bait. If you have a theory with potentially major implications, but you don't have concrete evidence to back it up, but you decide to post it anyway because you are afraid you will lose your scoop, you are fake news. If you have a political belief and you post theories that have no evidence, but you personally "know" they are true because of confirmation bias, you are fake news, and your reputation can never recover.

[Damajin]

We know the answer already. Because psychic shit is nonsense.

- - - Updated - - -



Yes, I understand he was talking about the existence of MKUltra and not its success. That was, however, in response to my pointing out the fact that stories claiming HAARP can be used to weaponize weather are fake. There's no comparison here unless we talk about whether or not MKUltra was successful, so I went down that route.

But I suppose I am at fault for not ignoring the first failed comparison and instead choosing to respond to it.

It's nonsense until it isn't, no different than any other kind of technology, discovery or development.

Weaponized weather was used long before HAARP was even a twinkle in someones' eyes man. They were using it in Vietnam. Cloud seeding and Geoengineering is an actual real thing.

[wunksta]

3 different administrations yet the same things keep happening year after year, decade after decade. You'd almost think it was a monolithic culture, or that particular types of people with particular types of motives, goals and actions are both acting in and driving the government. A playbook, as it were.

Nonsense, every conflict in the middle east over the last 3 decades is completely unrelated to each other

[CostinR]

Of course Russia would know. No Syria plane flies without their say.

[Damajin]

Nonsense, every conflict in the middle east over the last 3 decades is completely unrelated to each other

They don't have to be in order to be part of the Manifest Destiny urge, projected military interventionism and regime change to help secure Pax Americana. They still follow the same motivations, more often than not benefit the same people whether specifically or in a general class sense, and have way too many recurring themes and particulars to be isolated from each other.

So no, it's not nonsense.

[Deleted]

Nonsense, every conflict in the middle east over the last 3 decades is completely unrelated to each other

How can you even fucking say that.

[Skroe]

They don't have to be in order to be part of the Manifest Destiny urge, projected military interventionism and regime change to help secure Pax Americana. They still follow the same motivations, more often than not benefit the same people whether specifically or in a general class sense, and have way too many recurring themes and particulars to be isolated from each other.

So no, it's not nonsense.

No the common thread is unresolved border / national composition / governance / economic disputes stemming from the break up of the Ottoman Empire, along with traditional Shia-Sunni rivalry.

Everything else is a layer on top of those two.

[wunksta]

So no, it's not nonsense.

How can you even fucking say that.

Guess I need an /s tag.

No the common thread is unresolved border / national composition / governance / economic disputes stemming from the break up of the Ottoman Empire, along with traditional Shia-Sunni rivalry.

Everything else is a layer on top of those two.

Seems to me like the majority of the current issues stem from the battle for regional control between Saudi Arabia and Iran, with US and Russia behind each. Been happening since at least 1953 with Operation Ajax.

[Deleted]

No the common thread is unresolved border / national composition / governance / economic disputes stemming from the break up of the Ottoman Empire, along with traditional Shia-Sunni rivalry.

Everything else is a layer on top of those two.

Yeah yeah of course.
It's somebody else's fault.

- - - Updated - - -

Guess I need an /s tag.



Seems to me like the majority of the current issues stem from the battle for regional control between Saudi Arabia and Iran, with US and Russia behind each. Been happening since at least 1953 with Operation Ajax.

Whoa missed that /s by a mile I'm sorry dude.

Yes it all comes down to two major issues. Blind support to the house of saud and the coup in Iran in 53.

[Shalcker]

Yes it all comes down to two major issues. Blind support to the house of saud and the coup in Iran in 53.

As i've read by accounts of American diplomats in Iran at start of 2000s, Iranians were ready to come to US camp for Iraq... but then that whole Axis of Evil stuff was said, and that obviously put a stop on those thoughts and plans right there.

[Skroe]

Guess I need an /s tag.



Seems to me like the majority of the current issues stem from the battle for regional control between Saudi Arabia and Iran, with US and Russia behind each. Been happening since at least 1953 with Operation Ajax.

Will the Saudi Arabia - Iran thing is an ongoing unresolved struggle that goes back 1300 years over what the true home and true way of Islam is: where Mohammed got his start (modern day Saudi Arabia) or where Islamic Civilization flourished to a greater degree (the Persians already having several great empires pre-dating Islam)... and of course, the whole issue of who the legitimate successor of Mohammed was.

The US/Russia stuff was (and to a degree is) great power struggle and exactly what the struggle was in Europe, East Asia, South East Asia, South Asia and Latin America. Most of these other regions saw more historically punctuated fallout from the conflict. The conflict exacerbated pre-existing conflicts in the Middle East to a degree it didn't elsewhere (with some exceptions of course).

But even the US/Russia struggle was a sequel of sorts, to what I first said: the fall of the Ottoman Empire. With the end of World War I, the European empires chose to carve it up and drew arbitrary boundaries across the Middle East. That, more than anything else, directly led to the conflicts in the region of the past century. The US-Soviet/Russian conflict certainly capitalized on this pre-existing stability, but in a sense, it's the natural fallout from the end of an 700 year old empire. Those kinds of things were always messy.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah yeah of course.
It's somebody else's fault.

Given your Saturday-morning cartoon level of historical knowledge, this probably comes to a shock to you, but there is one power in the world Iran and Iranian civil society detests more than the US / "Great Satan". It's the United Kingdom, or "the Empire" as they used to call it.

And it's because they, unlike you, know their history. In fact the political narrative has the UK being the mastermind behind much of the tragedies that Iran has befallen... even America being a pawn to them.

Not saying that's right or wrong, but they have their reasons for believing it.

- - - Updated - - -

As i've read by accounts of American diplomats in Iran at start of 2000s, Iranians were ready to come to US camp for Iraq... but then that whole Axis of Evil stuff was said, and that obviously put a stop on those thoughts and plans right there.

The part you're neglecting to mention is that the Iranians were looking for an accomodation with the US it could not possibly give without alienating its far more important Sunni Arab allies.

Islamic Terrorism as it faces the west is largely Sunni in nature. Iran can't help much with that. The Sunni state's with their internal security services, where these would-be terrorists actually come from, can. It's more important to have a strong working relationship with them, than with Iran. And yes, we do have to choose. And we chose right.

[Sinyc]

You're so clueless it's beyond imagination. Russia knew ahead of time because we told them - it's SOP when bombing an ally's friend.

This AP story is about the Sarin gas attack, not the Tomahawks that the US just launched as a response... Can you even read?

Also, I don't think it's too hard to imagine Russia knowing ahead of time since they are allegedly working with Assad.

[Damajin]

No the common thread is unresolved border / national composition / governance / economic disputes stemming from the break up of the Ottoman Empire, along with traditional Shia-Sunni rivalry.

Everything else is a layer on top of those two.

Which never required the US to intercede one bit but you know, Manifest Destiny and all.

[Alydael]

Without even looking at a news report or any data- I can prove to you, through common sense- that Russia definetly knew all the details of the attack.

Russia is basically Asad's main ally.

Russia has its troops operating all over Syria.

It would be really bad for Asad if he "chemmed" the russian troops (would probably be the end for him).

He had to tell Russia about the timing of the attack and what it was to make sure that none of the Russian operatives would be mistakenly hit by the attack.

There it is. You really don't have to spend money investigating it or fighting it out over whether this is fake news or not, it is really very simple.

[Skroe]

Which never required the US to intercede one bit but you know, Manifest Destiny and all.

For most of the past 100 years, the greater Middle East was the center of "Independent" World Energy production with the other two big pillars being Russia and America themselves.

American oil was instrumental in fueling the Allied war machine in World War I, providing them with a decisive advantage over the Central Powers which had to count every drop. And that was before the US entered the war.

During World War II, a core part of the Allied strategy was to starve the Nazis and Japanese Empire of fuel supplies. Before their war machines were routed on the battlefield and leaders captured or killed, they were starving to death for fuel because the Allies spent years seizing strategy energy production locations.

The US is not stupid and recognized the need to continue this strategy after the War. Secure access to energy supplies is an entirely legitimate rationale for an interventionist foreign policy. The two largest wars in human history were decided, in large part, because of who controlled them.

"Manifest Destiny?" Ridiculous. Either the US became best friends forever with the Saudis and their neighbors, or the Russians would. And it worth noting, again, for over half the Cold War, Saudi Arabia was pretty much the only Arab ally the US had. The Nasser-era Middle East, while nominally non-aligned, was far friendlier to the USSR and then West.

In fact, US fortunes in the Middle East didn't start to turn until the Camp David Accords in 1978, which culminated a years-long effort by the US to peel Egypt, the strongest military power of the Arab world, out of the Soviet camp and into the US one.

The Middle East was not a core part of the Cold War. The US largely had what it wanted with a stable friendly oil produce in Saudi Arabia, and access to the Russian's soft underbelly from Turkey (and Iran for a long time).

[Damajin]

For most of the past 100 years, the greater Middle East was the center of "Independent" World Energy production with the other two big pillars being Russia and America themselves.

American oil was instrumental in fueling the Allied war machine in World War I, providing them with a decisive advantage over the Central Powers which had to count every drop. And that was before the US entered the war.

During World War II, a core part of the Allied strategy was to starve the Nazis and Japanese Empire of fuel supplies. Before their war machines were routed on the battlefield and leaders captured or killed, they were starving to death for fuel because the Allies spent years seizing strategy energy production locations.

The US is not stupid and recognized the need to continue this strategy after the War. Secure access to energy supplies is an entirely legitimate rationale for an interventionist foreign policy. The two largest wars in human history were decided, in large part, because of who controlled them.

"Manifest Destiny?" Ridiculous. Either the US became best friends forever with the Saudis and their neighbors, or the Russians would. And it worth noting, again, for over half the Cold War, Saudi Arabia was pretty much the only Arab ally the US had. The Nasser-era Middle East, while nominally non-aligned, was far friendlier to the USSR and then West.

In fact, US fortunes in the Middle East didn't start to turn until the Camp David Accords in 1978, which culminated a years-long effort by the US to peel Egypt, the strongest military power of the Arab world, out of the Soviet camp and into the US one.

The Middle East was not a core part of the Cold War. The US largely had what it wanted with a stable friendly oil produce in Saudi Arabia, and access to the Russian's soft underbelly from Turkey (and Iran for a long time).

Please.

Our entire foray into the M.E. is just a continuation of the days of British Petroleum and the lessons that Western industrialists/capitalists learned then as the focus went from regional to hemispheric and then finally global as technology permitted it. We needed a new playground for our war machine and new justification for expenditures so we do our buddies S.A. a favor or fifty and start meddling in the region and of course institute the Petrodollar.

Policies of the boardroom bleeding over into policies of the legislature until we have what we have now: a government and an economy that NEEDS someone to attack or it will collapse upon itself. It wasn't lost on us that the Romans knew just how well war can be for the economy.

I know that your entire life is based around destroying Russia and everything that threatens Pax Americana but it's completely insane to deny that Manifest Destiny isn't at the heart of every single bomb, destabilization effort and everything else that has been done. We weren't trying to save the world, we were trying to save our grip on it.

[Deleted]

Will the Saudi Arabia - Iran thing is an ongoing unresolved struggle that goes back 1300 years over what the true home and true way of Islam is: where Mohammed got his start (modern day Saudi Arabia) or where Islamic Civilization flourished to a greater degree (the Persians already having several great empires pre-dating Islam)... and of course, the whole issue of who the legitimate successor of Mohammed was.

The US/Russia stuff was (and to a degree is) great power struggle and exactly what the struggle was in Europe, East Asia, South East Asia, South Asia and Latin America. Most of these other regions saw more historically punctuated fallout from the conflict. The conflict exacerbated pre-existing conflicts in the Middle East to a degree it didn't elsewhere (with some exceptions of course).

But even the US/Russia struggle was a sequel of sorts, to what I first said: the fall of the Ottoman Empire. With the end of World War I, the European empires chose to carve it up and drew arbitrary boundaries across the Middle East. That, more than anything else, directly led to the conflicts in the region of the past century. The US-Soviet/Russian conflict certainly capitalized on this pre-existing stability, but in a sense, it's the natural fallout from the end of an 700 year old empire. Those kinds of things were always messy.

- - - Updated - - -



Given your Saturday-morning cartoon level of historical knowledge, this probably comes to a shock to you, but there is one power in the world Iran and Iranian civil society detests more than the US / "Great Satan". It's the United Kingdom, or "the Empire" as they used to call it.

And it's because they, unlike you, know their history. In fact the political narrative has the UK being the mastermind behind much of the tragedies that Iran has befallen... even America being a pawn to them.

Not saying that's right or wrong, but they have their reasons for believing it.

- - - Updated - - -



The part you're neglecting to mention is that the Iranians were looking for an accomodation with the US it could not possibly give without alienating its far more important Sunni Arab allies.

Islamic Terrorism as it faces the west is largely Sunni in nature. Iran can't help much with that. The Sunni state's with their internal security services, where these would-be terrorists actually come from, can. It's more important to have a strong working relationship with them, than with Iran. And yes, we do have to choose. And we chose right.

How cute. You pretend to know things. Awwwww.
Let's dismantle your bland generic post shall we?

Oh look, the old "1400 years long war" argument. Wonderful. You make it so easy for me thank you.

During the period of European rule over Rwanda, the Belgian colonial administrators of the territory accomplished an extraordinary feat in their subjugation of the local population - the deliberate manufacture of new ethnic divisions.

By formulating ethnic categorisations based on subjective judgments of Rwandans' height and skin colour, the Belgians sought to keep the Rwandan people at odds with one another and subservient to them. Entirely fabricated histories and genealogies were concocted for the "Hutu" and "Tutsi" peoples, although these terms themselves had been taken from the dustbin of Rwandan history and had had little effective meaning for hundreds of years.

This strategy of divide-and-conquer eventually resulted in the 1994 Rwandan Genocide, a bloodbath which shocked the conscience of the world and claimed the lives of roughly

During the period of European rule over Rwanda, the Belgian colonial administrators of the territory accomplished an extraordinary feat in their subjugation of the local population - the deliberate manufacture of new ethnic divisions.

By formulating ethnic categorisations based on subjective judgments of Rwandans' height and skin colour, the Belgians sought to keep the Rwandan people at odds with one another and subservient to them. Entirely fabricated histories and genealogies were concocted for the "Hutu" and "Tutsi" peoples, although these terms themselves had been taken from the dustbin of Rwandan history and had had little effective meaning for hundreds of years.

This strategy of divide-and-conquer eventually resulted in the 1994 Rwandan Genocide, a bloodbath which shocked the conscience of the world and claimed the lives of roughly 800,000 people. Hutus and Tutsis, themselves only recently fabricated identities, had come to believe in a false narrative in which they had been in opposition to one another since the dawn of time.

Today it is increasingly common to hear talk of the existence of a "1,400 Year War" between Sunni and Shia Muslims. In this narrative, the sectarian violence of today is simply the continuation of an ancient religious conflict rooted in events which transpired in the 7th century. While some Muslims themselves have recently bought into this worldview, it would suffice to say that such beliefs represent not only a misreading of history but a complete and utter fabrication of it. While there are distinct theological differences between Sunnis and Shias, the claim that these two groups have been in a perpetual state of war and animosity throughout their existence is an absurd falsehood.

The conflict now brewing between certain Sunni and Shia political factions in the Middle East today has little or nothing to do with religious differences and everything to do with modern identity politics. Just as in Rwanda, Western powers and their local allies have sought to exacerbate these false divisions in order to perpetuate conflict and maintain a Middle East which is at once thoroughly divided and incapable of asserting itself.

False continuities

Analyses of the roots of sectarian conflict in the Middle East tend to look at the historical schism between Sunnis and Shias as the original driving factor behind present-day tensions. In this reading of events, the 680AD Battle of Karbala in which the descendants of the Prophet Muhammad (who are particularly revered by Shia Muslims) were killed was merely the first battle in a long and continuous sectarian conflict which today is being played out in Syria, Lebanon and other countries throughout the Middle East.

As described by the Saudi writer Abdullah Hamiddadin, this explanation of contemporary events is as absurd as explaining modern tensions between Turkey and the EU as being rooted in the ancient conflict between King Charles and the Empress of Byzantium. Positing that present-day political rivalries can be explained by examining ninth-century conflicts between European powers is transparent nonsense. However, the same logic is readily applied to conflicts within the Muslim world.

Indeed, while modern political factions often make reference to theological differences, the usage of symbolism and rhetoric which draws upon the distant past (a tactic employed by political opportunists around the world) is very different than the existence of an actual continuity between ancient history and the present. However, thanks to the efforts of well-funded religious demagogues - themselves either ignorant of history or cynical manipulators of it - this patently ridiculous explanation of world events is gaining some purchase even among Muslims themselves.

Remembering history in the Middle East

For those who would seek to shamelessly fabricate a historical narrative in order to serve their venal political interests, it is worth restating some basic realities about the nature of sectarian relationships in the Middle East. While over a millennium of cohabitation the various religious communities of the region have experienced identifiable ups-and-downs in their relations, the overall narrative between them is vastly more of pluralism, tolerance and accommodation than of hard-wired conflict and animosity.

For centuries, Sunnis and Shias (as well as Christians, Jews and other religious groups) have lived closely intertwined with one another to a degree without parallel elsewhere in the world. Even where they have exerted power through distinct political structures, the argument that this has equated to conflict does not stand up to even a cursory analysis. While the Sunni Ottoman Empire and Shia Safavid Empire experienced their share of conflict, they also lived peaceably alongside one another for hundreds of years, even considering it shameful to engage in conflict with one another as Muslim powers.

Furthermore, despite seething protestations to the contrary from zealots of all types, "sects" have hardly been separately self-contained entities over history. Shia and Sunni Muslim scholars have long engaged in dialogue and influenced the religious thought of one another for centuries, blurring the already largely superficial distinctions between the two communities. As a legacy of this, today the greatest seat of learning in Sunni Islam also teaches Shia theology as an integrated school of thought.

Simply put, bullshit. Exacerbating the conflict by blindly supporting the most extreme groups for decades surely didn't help.
Like it didn't help in Iran where a somewhat modern population was pushed through extremism thanks to US foreign policies. Cute how you try to talk about the UK. It's as if I somehow said anything about their role in this mess.
Hint: I did not. If I wanted to talk about the UK I would have. Stop flinging shit and take responsibility for the chaos your ideologies caused.

And... hold on.... what's this? We chose right? Hahahah. You chose to blindly support the most extreme view of Islam currently on the planet. People like you are actually the reason why Islamic terrorism is now composed of extremely powerful groups active at international scale. You needed them in Afghanistan, and instead of putting a stop to It, you kept blindly supporting their fathers the saudis and now... look at what you've done.

- - - Updated - - -

Wait wait... let me guess...

"Blablabla anti America foreigner"

Did I get it right?

[Skroe]

How cute. You pretend to know things. Awwwww.
Let's dismantle your bland generic post shall we?

Oh look, the old "1400 years long war" argument. Wonderful. You make it so easy for me thank you.



Simply put, bullshit. Exacerbating the conflict by blindly supporting the most extreme groups for decades surely didn't help.
Like it didn't help in Iran where a somewhat modern population was pushed through extremism thanks to US foreign policies. Cute how you try to talk about the UK. It's as if I somehow said anything about their role in this mess.
Hint: I did not. If I wanted to talk about the UK I would have. Stop flinging shit and take responsibility for the chaos your ideologies caused.

And... hold on.... what's this? We chose right? Hahahah. You chose to blindly support the most extreme view of Islam currently on the planet. People like you are actually the reason why Islamic terrorism is now composed of extremely powerful groups active at international scale. You needed them in Afghanistan, and instead of putting a stop to It, you kept blindly supporting their fathers the saudis and now... look at what you've done.

- - - Updated - - -

Wait wait... let me guess...

"Blablabla anti America foreigner"

Did I get it right?

Nice of you to not provide a link to what you wrote.

That's fine. Google exists. I'll provide it for you since you're going to be weaselly.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opi...220768151.html

An Al Jazeera opinion piece, and one way, way way out of mainstream. But regardless, that 1400 year old war, as I wrote is only the soil. The foundation above that is the carving up of the Ottoman Empire. The house of horrors is built on that foundation, some of which the US constructed.

But as I also already said, the US has nothing to apologize for. Containing, then destroying the Soviet Empire and building the modern Liberal International Order was worth any costs.

[Deleted]

Nice of you to not provide a link to what you wrote.

That's fine. Google exists. I'll provide it for you since you're going to be weaselly.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opi...220768151.html

An Al Jazeera opinion piece, and one way, way way out of mainstream. But regardless, that 1400 year old war, as I wrote is only the soil. The foundation above that is the carving up of the Ottoman Empire. The house of horrors is built on that foundation, some of which the US constructed.

But as I also already said, the US has nothing to apologize for. Containing, then destroying the Soviet Empire and building the modern Liberal International Order was worth any costs.

OH NO HE FOUND OUT.
Yes an al Jazeera article. Any problem? Sorry, are you complaining about my source? You? Hahahah. What, ran out of rubbish from stratfor to link? Or foreignpolicy.com?
What you wrote is wrong. It's a common generic view that's discredited by reality. People say that because they're either ignorant or trying to use it to justify the 60 years long string of catastrophic choices with piss poor consequences. I wonder which of the two school of thought you belong to.

My god. So bland and generic. The Liberal International Order. Hold on, is that fighting an endless war against the.... Arc of Instability?