I did not yet read the New York Times article link you posted, but I will check it.
Hey, I have no idea how to deploy a Sarin Poison Gas attack. Are you sure you drop it from a jet plane? Is this the way to do it?
You do not think it is plausible that maybe a conventional air to ground bomb hit a weapons depot that had bottles of this Sarin poison there?
You think that Syria would want to use chemical weapons? Why would they do that now? Isn't it a poor strategy for them to do that suddenly? I mean, isn't it a stupid strategy to do that now?
Think back to 2013 - Syria was accused of using chemical weapons back then. My take on it was that it was BS back then, and I think there is a lot of evidence that does say that the Syrian government did not use chemical weapons in 2013.
So what are you basing your armchair judgement on this story on? Think about it. Don't believe what you think or at least be cautious about what you think you know. I am cautious. Are you?
Hey I am not for crazy conspiracy nonsense, all I want is for our media to stop insisting that they are reporting "facts" when they clearly are NOT reporting "facts".
If the UN (United Nations) disagrees with the "facts" from CNN - this needs to be mentioned for goodness sakes.
WHEN you read the article, you will see a pretty comprehensive set of information. There were also reports from Turkish doctors treating sarin injuries. There have been multiple other reports from first hand sources. The Syrians have done this before. The Russians seem to have known about it before hand. The concerns you raise: "how was it deployed, what do we KNOW, maybe it was just sitting there" - seem to be from the Russian counter info campaign. I wonder where you first got those concerns? If you came up with them yourself, ok, but I suspect you read them somewhere and I am curious what the source was.
I am aware of no real debate as to what happened in 2013 at this point. 1400 people dead. Significant, unanimous international condemnation and sanctions. As to why they did it, there are many sources discussing this: a lack of real consequences (still none really, the airfield is working just fine), a message to his people, a message to his neighbors. If you have a crazy guy with his hand on the button, it might make you WANT to get him more...but you're definitely going to be very, very cautious about it.
All of what I am saying is available through respected, cited sources that compliment each other. That said, there is always "room for doubt." The question is not whether there is absolute, God-given certainty (which he hasn't deigned to provide, ever), but whether there are reasonable questions and challenges. So far, there simply are not.
I don't "simply" trust mainstream media. I read what they say (the whole article), then I read what their competition says (the whole article), I look to see what their sources are then I decide whether something is true, likely true, kinda true, kinda false, mostly false, false or you-ought-to-be-ashamed-of-yourself lie. It's not HARD to do, but it does take effort, and why a policy/procedure to make it easier to identify these elements is controversial is beyond me.
[doublepost=1492004382][/doublepost]
WHEN you read the article, you will see a pretty comprehensive set of information. There were also reports from Turkish doctors treating sarin injuries. There have been multiple other reports from first hand sources. The Syrians have done this before. The Russians seem to have known about it before hand. The concerns you raise: "how was it deployed, what do we KNOW, maybe it was just sitting there" - seem to be from the Russian counter info campaign. I wonder where you first got those concerns? If you came up with them yourself, ok, but I suspect you read them somewhere and I am curious what the source was.
I am aware of no real debate as to what happened in 2013 at this point. 1400 people dead. Significant, unanimous international condemnation and sanctions. As to why they did it, there are many sources discussing this: a lack of real consequences (still none really, the airfield is working just fine), a message to his people, a message to his neighbors. If you have a crazy guy with his hand on the button, it might make you WANT to get him more...but you're definitely going to be very, very cautious about it.
All of what I am saying is available through respected, cited sources that compliment each other. That said, there is always "room for doubt." The question is not whether there is absolute, God-given certainty (which he hasn't deigned to provide, ever), but whether there are reasonable questions and challenges. So far, there simply are not.
I don't "simply" trust mainstream media. I read what they say (the whole article), then I read what their competition says (the whole article), I look to see what their sources are then I decide whether something is true, likely true, kinda true, kinda false, mostly false, false or you-ought-to-be-ashamed-of-yourself lie. It's not HARD to do, but it does take effort, and why a policy/procedure to make it easier to identify these elements is controversial is beyond me.
And an addendum to the above: I trust sources that reliably land on the "true-mostly true" spectrum significantly more frequently more than unknown sources or sources that reliably lie their faces off. Part of this is evaluating sources that honestly and clearly post retractions or corrections when needed. The irony when people point to a retraction or correction as exposing "fake news" is staggering.
That is why the NYT, WashPo, etc are real sources to be trusted and Breitbart and Infowars should be purged from all responsible discussion. I know I will get some "coastal liberal media spin", but I also know that they will reliably, consistently, faithfully conduct their work and check it as well as is possible. I also know that certain others do everything they can to avoid that kind of ethical journalism, and I know the kind of people that enjoy and embrace it.