Saying Assad is responsible is like believing in the Easter Bunny 🐣

The fact that the stockpile was attacked before the UN could inspect makes things look suspicious

Ok attacked by who? Is there a real source on this to be able to put something concrete into this?

what point are you trying to make exactly with your thread... just curious

Firstly thanks for helping me to make my point.

We live in a postmodern world where “reality is subjective” and “all opinions or interpretations valid”* (unless you disagree with us for example oppose equality, diversity, tolerance and the theory of man made climate change).

So no evidence is required for anything, and the political / media machine must be right. “They” know what “they” are talking about.

Media pundits and low rank politicians are often well intentioned but are unable to question the momentum of the “confirmation bias”.

The point is that there is a clique at the top who set the agenda, and it’s very easy for them to install the agenda because in the postmodern world, it’s almost like people have been retarded in some way, they are unable to evaluate information agains a confirmation bias.

These are some wise words.. thank u! I agree with you..

I just went on LBC to declare that the Syria debate has been reframed as evidence vs. absolute evidence. In reality there is evidence of Syria chemical attacks but there is no evidence of responsibility. All there is, is a kind of “confirmation bias” with media and politics and people who don’t actually validate any information and need to prove how intelligent they are by keeping up with the “confirmation bias.”

When I was 4 or 5, all my friends believed in the Easter Bunny. It was common sense and confirmed by everyone, and even official institutions like Disney, so it must have been true.

Of course the response was an Ad Hominem.

The reports for example UN or French Intelligence for this round and the 2013 round point to chemical attacks but can find who is responsible. Seeing as we know that there are rebels trying to take over the country (which they e fund) we know very well that these rebels can and do use weapons of many types.

Therefore any immature people with an “of course that’s so” attitude, keep your prejudices to yourself. However please prove me wrong with real sources and a newspaper is not a real source.

https://news.un.org/en/story/2017/11/570192-both-isil-and-syrian-government-responsible-use-chemical-weapons-un-security

Is a report directly from the UN good enough for you?

Ok let’s take that article as a starting premise. (I suspect that that article is most likely the truth). The article states that both the government and ISIS (ISIL) rebels (who we sponsor), use chemical weapons. It’s not exactly a stretch of the imagination to say this.

Any ISIS around?

I just went on LBC to declare that the Syria debate has been reframed as evidence vs. absolute evidence. In reality there is evidence of Syria chemical attacks but there is no evidence of responsibility. All there is, is a kind of “confirmation bias” with media and politics and people who don’t actually validate any information and need to prove how intelligent they are by keeping up with the “confirmation bias.”

When I was 4 or 5, all my friends believed in the Easter Bunny. It was common sense and confirmed by everyone, and even official institutions like Disney, so it must have been true.

Of course the response was an Ad Hominem.

The reports for example UN or French Intelligence for this round and the 2013 round point to chemical attacks but can find who is responsible. Seeing as we know that there are rebels trying to take over the country (which they e fund) we know very well that these rebels can and do use weapons of many types.

Therefore any immature people with an “of course that’s so” attitude, keep your prejudices to yourself. However please prove me wrong with real sources and a newspaper is not a real source.

Ok let’s take that article as a starting premise. (I suspect that that article is most likely the truth). The article states that both the government and ISIS (ISIL) rebels (who we sponsor), use chemical weapons. It’s not exactly a stretch of the imagination to say this.

So why are we going Assad, Assad, Assad and turning a blind eye to our sponsored rebels doing this? Because we a partisan and this is all about rooting, paying and playing for one side in this conflict.

You are playing into the confirmation bias by thinking that your article proves that “Assad did it” - some type of political / media narrative.

Ermmmm, we've literally been blowing up ISIS terrorists for the last 4 years using Hellfires, Brimstones, GBU-12s, Paveways etc. Weird way of sponsoring them.

Firstly thanks for helping me to make my point.

We live in a postmodern world where “reality is subjective” and “all opinions or interpretations valid”* (unless you disagree with us for example oppose equality, diversity, tolerance and the theory of man made climate change). Scientific reality is terrible if it might “offend someone” and what that really means is contradicts liberal left values.

So no evidence is required for anything, and the political / media machine must be right. “They” know what “they” are talking about.

Media pundits and low rank politicians are often well intentioned but are unable to question the momentum of the “confirmation bias”.

The point is that there is a clique at the top who set the agenda, and it’s very easy for them to install the agenda because in the postmodern world, it’s almost like people have been retarded in some way, they are unable to evaluate information agains a confirmation bias.

Sure there are. All factual information states that Russia and the Syrian government are on one side. And the rebels are ISIS aligned and sponsored by the west.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_involvement_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War

The only intelligent analysis of this has to go back to the start of this and ask what each side is trying to achieve as opposed to Mickey Mouse media “Assad is a terrible Satan and so are the Russians.”

Have you come to a conclusion about what happened or who the perpetrators may be? Or are you just keeping an open mind and have no agenda to push?