Skip to main content

View Diary: Kerry's speech was unconvincing and inaccurate (154 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  based on what CONCRETE evidence (4+ / 0-)

    no one on any of these pages has presented ANY evidence of any kind that the rebels were involved in this attack.  None.  zero.

    Please present any evidence you know of.  Thanks

    •  There's no concrete evidence about (7+ / 0-)

      either attack. There is no way to determine for sure who perpetrated the first attack. This is stated above. I never said the rebels surely did it. I said the way Kerry presented it, as if Assad had done it for sure was bullshit. Also, there isn't any fucking evidence about this latest attack either, especially not of the concrete variety. As a matter of fact the US was pretty gung ho to not wait for any actual investigation prior to acting.

      Regardless, the following is always true: whenever anyone tries to act without waiting for all the facts, it means they don't care about the facts, because the course of action has already been decided.

      "Sanity and happiness are an impossible combination." - Mark Twain; "I've never seen I Republican and thought, gee that person looks happy" - me

      by You know me man on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 01:20:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Then we need to BACK OFF THIS INSANITY (0+ / 0-)
        There's no concrete evidence
        You don't have evidence? Then the fucking discussion is over, insofar as a "bombing" option.

        The. End.

        NO.

        This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

        by lunachickie on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 01:38:17 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  That is absolutely not true (0+ / 0-)

        As I summarized, there is rather a lot.  But I guess you should amend you comment: those who ignore known facts don't care about the facts either

        •  This evidence you reference is (0+ / 0-)

          anything but concrete. We have people in authority who want military action saying there's evidence that strongly points to Assad, intercepts of conversations about the attack, etc. Pardon me, but unless there is an imminent danger to the US, I'm going to go ahead and wait until all of the facts are in. Even then, I don't think we should unilaterally get to decide who deserves a bombing campaign because we decided they violated an international "norm". I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the international community as a whole should decide if someone violated a "norm" and deserves to be attacked for it.

          "Sanity and happiness are an impossible combination." - Mark Twain; "I've never seen a Republican and thought, gee that person looks happy" - me

          by You know me man on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 04:59:27 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  it is pretty much as concrete as could be possible (0+ / 0-)

            Insisting on the impossible suggests that people aren't considering the evidence in front of us.  I mean, what do you want, a videotaped confession from Assad?  We have people in authority who are pushing for involvement based on the evidence they have  These same people were very clearly following a policy for non involvement for years.  In effect, this argument really is just saying we can't believe the evidence in front of us because it's a conspiracy of the government/press/non-profits/whathaveyou.  CT isn't evidence.

            And as I have pointed out repeatedly, there is ZEROZEROZERO evidence implicating the rebels.  Only speculation.  But actual evidence?  none.

            Now, I agree we should wait for the UN inspectors to finish, since Assad's moved his military assets into civilian areas already, so it's too late to catch them on military bases (which is, as it turns out, ALSO a war crime, but hey)

            Finally, international norms are standards of customary international law and arguably the duty to defend is a doctrine that requires a response to defuse the threat to civilians where possible.

    •  There's no concrete evidence either way (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      fran1, aliasalias, JVolvo, Cartoon Messiah

      Just a bunch of intelligence agencies promising they aren't lying to us this time.

      If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

      by AoT on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 01:20:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  and a bunch of journalists who were there (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        willrob, petral

        and various military analysts and experts on internal Syrian and Middle Eastern affairs.  This "there's no evidence" meme is pretty disingenuous because no matter what evidence is presented, it can always be answered by CT or by simply ignoring it.

        There is significant evidence that the regime conducted these attacks, and to date no evidence that anyone on Dailykos has been able to provide that the rebels carried out the attack.  Thus, to present both as equally likely is simply a false equivalency, somewhat akin to the US media's coverage of climate change, for example.  The two bodies of evidence are simply not of comparable weight.

        At this point, one has either to accept that the intercepts by various agencies that confirm what the circumstantial evidence points to or one has to resort to a conspiracy theory that the intelligence agencies of multiple countries are conconcting the whole thing.  As I said before, unlike in the run up to the Iraq war, there's no evidence to support any kind of conspiracy theory here (There WAS such countervailing evidence in 2002.)

        Long story short, one side is citing evidence here, one isn't

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site