| >>It occurs to me that you Sir are not trying to be objective at all. 1. You use bloggers as references while shrugging at serious references. 2. A single minute's check on wikipedia showed that your claims about the May vote is garbage. Why should anyone takes you seriously after that?! (I am a bit disappointed that you ignored this subject and didn't explain the conspiracies and lies about your Glorious Leader?) ----- About Syrian chemical weapons: Of course there weren't much physical proofs remaining, the Assad government shelled the target area a lot, to remove them... The rebel side didn't have the type of artillery used, no one overheard any communications from them about this -- and the rebels didn't use that artillery on their enemy afterwards. But if the rebels seems so unlikely, maybe it wasn't the Assads either but a third party. Elves? :-) [I am repeating myself and my references here.] (And bombing the Assads: Because of internal politics, Obama has left hundreds of thousands of Syrians to be killed by Russian weapons. It is an outrage.) |
These have back-references to official sources that you try to ignore.
> 2. A single minute's check on Wikipedia showed that your claims about the May vote is garbage.
No, it didn't, and I have already explained why in previous posts. The words about May polls come from respected sociologist and author of The Guardian.
The same goes to your reference to Wikipedia page about Crimean referendum, in particular, the data about previous polling [1]. Previous polls were taken before the overthrowing of Yanukovich and before new Kiev Government has issued statement about revocation of Russian language law.
About Syria:
Here are the words of lead investigator, Ake Sellstrom from official UN press-conference, pinpointed to minutes and seconds: [2]
Congressman Alan Grayson on NYT: [3]
As about your links to HRW, first one [4] is about different attack, that was not used as a pretext to possible Western bombardments, so I would rather not discuss it to prevent "topic creep". The second one [5] is contradicted by the conclusions of UN investigators, because they report that rocket bust have had much smaller range: 2 km [6] instead of "3.8 to 9.8" reported by HRW article [5], which makes HRW narrative fall apart.
So, this means, that in Syria, just like with Iraq in 2003, the West has used at best dubious evidence as a political pretext for possible war. This, and previous history with accidents like the one in The Gulf of Tonkin [7], we have every right to be skeptical about western claims that are not supported by strong evidence.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_status_referendum,_201...
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CFn9pWNKeI#t=39m10s
[3] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/07/opinion/on-syria-vote-trus...
[4] http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/05/13/syria-strong-evidence-gov...
[5] http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/09/10/syria-government-likely-c...
[6] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CFn9pWNKeI#t=16m10s
[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident#Distor...