Comment by InTheArena | Hacker News Reader

Comment by InTheArena | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

If your definition of legitimate includes government use of chemical weapons against their people, I suspect we are not going to agree on much.

Regardless, a little history lesson. One of the things Obama ran on was that the United States policy towards Russia was needlessly antagonistic due to the influence of evil neo-conservatives. Hillary went so far as to buy a staples "Easy Button" and present it to the Russian diplomats in her fist meeting with them afterwords... The same HRC that the Russians just mucked with massively during the last election.

I've really come to the conclusion given their support and attacks against both Democrats and Republicans, White and Black, liberals and conservatives that the current Russian government doesn't care about helping a candidate - they want to destroy the civil fabric of the United States.

So yes, enabling dictators to gas their own people, encouraging race riots, and attempting to subvert Democracies by interfering with elections are Acts of war.

Haha both of the April supposed chemical weapons attacks were a fraud. That's why no one reports on them anymore. In order to offer useful "little history lessons", you need to pay attention and remember farther back than last week. You're destroying your own "civil fabric".

And you need to source your claims. Nobody has reason to believe a word of what you write.

Presumably, it is based on claims by Russian and Syrian authorities. These are not impartial sources, and they delayed access of international inspectors to the site.

OPCW has confirmed use of chemical weapons by Syrian government during the civil war at several separate occasions.

You won't see this on Fox or MSNBC. They have commitments to fulfill, unrelated to journalism. If you like, there are some other places to look:

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/syria-chemical-attack-g...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSXwG-901yU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbWAABd9CV4

If your sources include two conspiracy-like youtube videos, and a legitimate article saying "maybe", you may want to rethink your position here.

There hasn't been much questioning of the narrative in MSM.

This might by one of those rare instances https://www.informationliberation.com/?id=58259

However, outside MSM, there are questions across the political spectrum however. Such as...

https://www.alternet.org/grayzone-project/what-really-happen...

https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2018/04/12/idiocy-is-br...

However, Iraq WMD's were all reported by legitimate news sources at the time. Sometimes in the present, it is never clear as to what may or not be ultimately revealed.

I love it, that direct on-the-ground reporting from the location of the alleged events is "conspiracy-like". I suspect I've rethought my "position" a lot more than you have.

You may want to look into media bias and the One America News Network. I suspect you haven't rethought your position at all, and rather parrot the position you see on the media you consume. Think outside the box.

OMG I had literally never heard of OANN until referred there by some leftists I follow. They hate MSNBC too. You can't even see the box. You actually believe that it's "right wing" to be skeptical of excuses for war. I am a pacifist who is against all USA military violence of the last several decades. This has been a journey for me, since after all I did vote to re-elect Bush the Lesser. Fool me once.

Leave all that aside. The way to contradict an on-the-ground report the bias of which is obvious and unacceptable to you, is to show us an on-the-ground report that contradicts it, the bias of which is more acceptable to you. This has the benefit of being less insulting than shallow assumptions about my media habits, oh and also it has the benefit of making any logical sense whatsoever, in contrast to the three sentences of meaningless pablum we see here.

Tick-tock.

Regarding Syria, as I understand, their leader (Assad) has good relations with Russia and there is a Russian military base. It is obvious that if US-supported opposition would win then there would be pro-US government and American bases instead of Russian and Putin doesn't want that. I don't see how US's motives are anything different than Russians'.

While Assad is a dictator, he has support from a part of a population (and is hated by the other part). If you side with one part and drop bombs on another, the conflict won't go away. If you just look at the Wikipedia page [1] you'll see how many military groups and countries are taking part.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Civil_War

Reply on news.ycombinator.com