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

Watch
Airplanebee2
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#1
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.
9
reply
username3180692
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#2
Report 2 years ago
#2
The fact that the stockpile was attacked before the UN could inspect makes things look suspicious
4
reply
Airplanebee2
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#3
(Original post by PhilDanthropist)
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?
0
reply
username3180692
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#4
Report 2 years ago
#4
(Original post by Airplanebee2)
Ok attacked by who? Is there a real source on this to be able to put something concrete into this?
idk I just heard of some news site... i have no opinion.... I am just saying the way I heard it makes it sounds suspicious i have no idea about this stuff.. dont attack me lol
0
reply
username3180692
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#5
Report 2 years ago
#5
what point are you trying to make exactly with your thread... just curious
0
reply
Airplanebee2
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#6
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#6
(Original post by PhilDanthropist)
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). 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 ******ed in some way, they are unable to evaluate information agains a confirmation bias.
1
reply
username3180692
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#7
Report 2 years ago
#7
(Original post by Airplanebee2)
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 ******ed in some way, they are unable to evaluate information agains a confirmation bias.
These are some wise words.. thank u! I agree with you..
0
reply
The PoliticalGuy
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#8
Report 2 years ago
#8
Well then I must believe in the Easter bunny.
3
reply
Airplanebee2
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#9
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#9
(Original post by PhilDanthropist)
These are some wise words.. thank u! I agree with you..
Glad you see the point. The replacement of critical thinking is most important point that needs to be discussed today and yet is constantly dismissed or ignored.
0
reply
Tempest II
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#10
Report 2 years ago
#10
(Original post by Airplanebee2)
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...ns-un-security

Is a report directly from the UN good enough for you?
0
reply
BTAnonymous
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#11
Report 2 years ago
#11
The Syrian people love Assad. It's just so stupid to think that he would do something like that.

Only the gullible sheep will believe the media.
1
reply
Airplanebee2
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#12
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#12
(Original post by Tempest II)
https://news.un.org/en/story/2017/11...ns-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.

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.
0
reply
username1738683
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#13
Report 2 years ago
#13
(Original post by Airplanebee2)
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?
0
reply
Airplanebee2
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#14
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#14
(Original post by zhog)
Any ISIS around?
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/Fore...rian_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.”
0
reply
uberteknik
  • Study Helper
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#15
Report 2 years ago
#15
(Original post by Airplanebee2)
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.
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?
0
reply
Tempest II
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#16
Report 2 years ago
#16
(Original post by Airplanebee2)
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.
0
reply
Airplanebee2
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#17
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#17
(Original post by Tempest II)
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.
Blowing them up in Iraq and Afghanistan and sponsoring them in Syria.

It’s a very weird way of operating. (I hope you don’t believe the explanations of things on the global fake news system).

If you’re disputing that then see:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fore...rian_Civil_War

And if you dispute that then see the wiki articles 257 sources.
0
reply
TCA2b
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#18
Report 2 years ago
#18
(Original post by Airplanebee2)
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 ******ed in some way, they are unable to evaluate information agains a confirmation bias.
Agreed.
0
reply
username1738683
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#19
Report 2 years ago
#19
(Original post by Airplanebee2)
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/Fore...rian_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.”
At some point, we have to pick the most plausible scenario from the menu and it is fine to doubt everything but in that case... what are the US trying to achieve with this strike? What is your opinion on that?
0
reply
Airplanebee2
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#20
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#20
(Original post by uberteknik)
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?
In a world of subjectivity, fake news and fluidity one can only go with empirical data. What it leads to is a clique of people who control the agenda and push out the content. This is people like Zbigniew Brzezinski who are presidential neocon advisors who wrote books spelling out exactly what they are doing. Books like “The Grand Chessboard”. Yes it’s all documented. There is some type of propaganda mechanism whereby by people can’t switch onto this.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Should there be a new university admissions system that ditches predicted grades?

No, I think predicted grades should still be used to make offers (627)
33.66%
Yes, I like the idea of applying to uni after I received my grades (PQA) (784)
42.08%
Yes, I like the idea of receiving offers only after I receive my grades (PQO) (368)
19.75%
I think there is a better option than the ones suggested (let us know in the thread!) (84)
4.51%

Watched Threads

View All