Clinton

[rowan]

So what's your idea, Sandydragon? The students, teachers and doctors involved in the so-called Arab Spring demonstrations in Damascus suddenly morphed into fully-armed, psychopathic, head-chopping, missile-firing terrorists in the north? So why were they entering from Iraq and Turkey then? Why was America training and arming them (and freely admitting it)? Why would Assad carry out a chemical gas attack on his own people the very day UN inspectors arrived in Damascus to check things out? Is he simply the most stupid leader ever? & why is America more interested in this guy than the absolute monarchs and brutal despots who've been running Saudi Arabia? Why is Israel attacking Hezbollah inside Syria, when Hezbollah is fighting ISIS? Why did a NATO member down a Russian plane when the Russians were there at the invitation of the government (unlike America & co), fighting ISIS? & why have 2 journalists just been thrown in prison for 5 years for exposing weapons supply lines directly from a NATO member to terrorists in Syria? Do you actually have any idea what's going on there? This is not the first time the US has attempted regime change in Damascus, btw. A few year's before they successfully overthrew Iran's first democratic government in 1953 (leading to the return of a brutal Shah and another quarter century of oppression), they had a crack at Syria - but failed. That's how Syria became aligned with the Soviets during the Cold War, and why they maintain close military contacts with Russia to this day.

[Len]

She's a vicious warmonger and shameless sycophant. She'll be a terrible president, but this was already decided long ago. Trump is only there to try and make her look like the lesser of two evils, but I'm not sure he's quite managed it. At least Trump doesn't hate Russia and China so much he'd start WWIII. At least he's admitted Iraq was a huge mistake. Clinton's views on Israel and Palestine are at least as racist and hypocritical as anything Trump's spouted off about.

Oh god. Another 'it'll be WW3!!!'

[Zhivago]

So what's your idea, Sandydragon? The students, teachers and doctors involved in the so-called Arab Spring demonstrations in Damascus suddenly morphed into fully-armed, psychopathic, head-chopping, missile-firing terrorists in the north? So why were they entering from Iraq and Turkey then? Why was America training and arming them (and freely admitting it)? Why would Assad carry out a chemical gas attack on his own people the very day UN inspectors arrived in Damascus to check things out? Is he simply the most stupid leader ever? & why is America more interested in this guy than the absolute monarchs and brutal despots who've been running Saudi Arabia? Why is Israel attacking Hezbollah inside Syria, when Hezbollah is fighting ISIS? Why did a NATO member down a Russian plane when the Russians were there at the invitation of the government (unlike America & co), fighting ISIS? & why have 2 journalists just been thrown in prison for 5 years for exposing weapons supply lines directly from a NATO member to terrorists in Syria? Do you actually have any idea what's going on there? This is not the first time the US has attempted regime change in Damascus, btw. A few year's before they successfully overthrew Iran's first democratic government in 1953 (leading to the return of a brutal Shah and another quarter century of oppression), they had a crack at Syria - but failed. That's how Syria became aligned with the Soviets during the Cold War, and why they maintain close military contacts with Russia to this day.

Indeed. Sandy, I await your reply...

[Sandydragon]

So what's your idea, Sandydragon? The students, teachers and doctors involved in the so-called Arab Spring demonstrations in Damascus suddenly morphed into fully-armed, psychopathic, head-chopping, missile-firing terrorists in the north? So why were they entering from Iraq and Turkey then? Why was America training and arming them (and freely admitting it)? Why would Assad carry out a chemical gas attack on his own people the very day UN inspectors arrived in Damascus to check things out? Is he simply the most stupid leader ever? & why is America more interested in this guy than the absolute monarchs and brutal despots who've been running Saudi Arabia? Why is Israel attacking Hezbollah inside Syria, when Hezbollah is fighting ISIS? Why did a NATO member down a Russian plane when the Russians were there at the invitation of the government (unlike America & co), fighting ISIS? & why have 2 journalists just been thrown in prison for 5 years for exposing weapons supply lines directly from a NATO member to terrorists in Syria? Do you actually have any idea what's going on there? This is not the first time the US has attempted regime change in Damascus, btw. A few year's before they successfully overthrew Iran's first democratic government in 1953 (leading to the return of a brutal Shah and another quarter century of oppression), they had a crack at Syria - but failed. That's how Syria became aligned with the Soviets during the Cold War, and why they maintain close military contacts with Russia to this day.

Syria is a nation with significant tribal divides. Some support Assad, some don't. Those protesting against him obviously didn't and still don't. Assad used violence against them. He helped turn non-violent demonstrators into an armed insurgency. Weapons are freely available in the region - the border with Iraq is porous enough to allow pretty much anything to cross. This isn't the first time that the Syrian regime has responded with excessive violence, the rebellion in the 1980s saw Syrian planes bombing civilian targets, with thousands of civilian deaths.

As civil wars continue, they tend to get more bloody. Ordinary people lose any restraints and yes they do morph into people capable of carrying out despicable acts. If you read any account of mass violence, you will easily find out that the vast majority of perpetrators were normal people before hand, not closet psychopaths.

There is definitely outside assistance, but to both sides. Hezbollah have been supporting Assad for some time, before that, his position was far less secure. A variety of countries are helping the opposition. The more extreme elements of the opposition have different origins in some respects. ISIS has taken advantage of the collapse of regime power in certain parts of the country. WHilst they are attracting many ideologically driven fighters, there will be just as many who are siding with them because they offer an effective opposition to Assad. Morals go out of the window when faced with defeat and death. Incidentally, Islamic rebellion in SYria is not new, there are examples of this from the 1970s and 1980s.

You are referring otthe same UN inspections team which broadly dismissed Syrian government explanations for the presence of Sarin gas on the battle field? Was Assad personally aware of the deployment of chemical weapons on that day in that location? Its perfectly possible that he was not. CHemical weapons have been used on a number of occasions, its entirely possible that control was handed down to battlefield commanders who were unaware of the bigger picture.

WHy Syria and not Saudi? Saudi isn't engaged in a civil war. The uS would have minimal interest in Syria if not for the civil war. The Syrian government has been pro-Russian for a long time so the US aren't that friendly towards them, but there would be no support for opposition groups to the current scale if not for the murderous response by the regime towards what was legitimate protest. For the record, the Saudi government is almost as repellent as that of Assad, but lets not pretend that oil doesn't make us ignore some of the less savoury elements.

Israeli actions against Hezbollah aren't new. I strongly suspect that Tel Aviv is concerned at security along the Golan Heights and is taking steps to ensure that a terrorist organisation that wants to destroy Israel doesn't get too powerful.

The Turks claim that the Russian plane infringed their airspace. It certainly did, albeit for a short period of time. An overreaction - very much so.

Russia supports Assad and some Nato countries have supported the rebels. Every nation has its own political views on the matter. You cant condemn one without condemning both sides. Personally, Id be quite happy to allow both sides to fight it out on their own and just provide humanitarian support.

Im very aware of whats happening in Syria. Ive had the benefit of reading literature not in the public domain on the matter. Thanks for asking though.

Previous US activity isn't entirely relevant. The Arab Spring took on a life of its own, thanks to the internet, and I doubt that anyone in Washington would have expected such a widespread outpouring of anger against established regimes. Its often forgotten that during the Arab Spring, American allies were undermined as much as the opposition. If you seek to place the blame for the conflict purely on the west, then you ignore the role of the Assad regime. That would be intellectually dishonest. The current Baathists took power in a Coup and have held onto power through authoritarian government ever since; not a model for legitimate government of the people by the people.

Some other information you might be interested in. Those election results where Assad won over 90% of the votes were uncontested. Not exactly a beacon for a modern democracy is it? Until the new constitution was released in 2012 (after the civil war started) Syria was a one party state. Is it surprising that democracy protestors wanted to see change?

Meanwhile, Russian and Syrian air strikes are killing combatants and non-combatants indiscriminately. This is in contrast to the laws of armed conflict where proportionality and discrimination in attacking targets is stressed. Yet if Nato planes were doing a fraction of this damage in Afghanistan, there would be outrage. Somehow, Putin and Assad are praised for doing far worse than the West, but the same people who shout loudest whenever a Nato aircraft accidentally kills civilians.

So I do find it strange that a reporter who travels to Syria only sees one side of the conflict and ignores the many examples of war crimes by the government and its backers. There are plenty of eyewitness reports from those who have been on the ground in Syria which contradict her, so why do you automatically believe her and not them? I'd see your perspective if there was merely one or 2 contradictory reports, but there are far more than that. Its clearly a propaganda effort by Assad and Putin, but of course its only your opponents who are blinded by propaganda. Im not suggesting that the opposition are made up of nice people with good intentions, but if you cant see the crimes of the Syrian and Russian governments here then I worry about your sense of perspective.

[rowan]

He helped turn non-violent demonstrators into an armed insurgency.


So you do think the students, teachers and doctors involved in the so-called Arab Spring demonstrations in Damascus suddenly morphed into fully-armed, psychopathic, head-chopping, missile-firing terrorists in the north. Thanks for answering that question. Interesting that many are known to have crossed into Syria from neighboring countries, however, and were fully armed and trained by America (who freely admit it).

You are referring otthe same UN inspections team which broadly dismissed Syrian government explanations for the presence of Sarin gas on the battle field?


So you're not aware this sarin gas has actually been traced back to a NATO member? Ok, if you want to believe Assad is so inept that his own soldiers did this on the day UN inspectors arrived in Damascus, fine. But Seymour Hersh, one of the world's most respected and experienced investigative journalists (he broke the My Lai massacre story almost half a century ago) disagrees with you http://www.diken.com.tr/seymour-hersh-i ... -in-syria/

The uS would have minimal interest in Syria if not for the civil war.


Just like they weren't interested in Afghanistan, Iraq & Libya, I suppose? Well, America started the war, my friend, albeit by proxy (the world simply wouldn't have stood for another Iraq). General Wesley Clarke even predicted they would, when he read out a list of countries America was set to invade following 9/11 - Iraq, Libya & Syria included.

the Saudi government is almost as repellent as that of Assad


An absolute monarch that decapitates, whips and otherwise tortures people for atheism and homosexuality, you mean? A country where women have zero rights and a recent video shows that men are actually instructed on how to beat up their wives? I've been to Syria. I was there before the war. Women walked around in Western clothing. My friend was married to one. They don't decapitate, whip and torture as standard punishments either. & meanwhile the Saudi army is bombing Yemen - including schools, hospitals and wedding parties. But in your estimation this is not as bad as Assad? http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/s ... g-hits-131

Israeli actions against Hezbollah aren't new. I strongly suspect that Tel Aviv is concerned at security along the Golan Heights and is taking steps to ensure that a terrorist organisation that wants to destroy Israel doesn't get too powerful.


Israel's occupation of Syria's Goldan Heights has been adjudged illegal by the UN. So why on earth is Israel attacking Hezbollah in Syria when they're fighting ISIS? Hezbollah, incidentally, was formed in 1982 after Israeli soldiers encouraged and permitted a huge, vicious massacre of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon by Christian militia & the world stood by and did nothing. http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/featur ... 13255.html

The Turks claim that the Russian plane infringed their airspace. It certainly did, albeit for a short period of time. An overreaction - very much so.


It was in Turkish air space for 17 seconds, corner-cutting a chunk of land which is actually contested by Syria. Several years ago a Turkish fighter jet was shot down over Greece and the Turks screamed blue murder. But when a Russian plane on its way to bomb ISIS terrorists is shot down whilst very briefly in Turkish air space, suddenly this is justifiable. In fact, Turkish planes violated Greek air space over 2200 times in 2014 alone https://www.rt.com/news/323429-greece-t ... iolations/

You cant condemn one without condemning both sides. If you seek to place the blame for the conflict purely on the west, then you ignore the role of the Assad regime.
.


So the Syrian government doesn't have the right to defend itself? Not even when under seige from Western-backed terrorists? So Russia doesn't have the right to help a country under seige from terrorists defend itself when invited to do so? Is that what you're saying?

[rowan]

The current Baathists took power in a Coup and have held onto power through authoritarian government ever since; not a model for legitimate government of the people by the people.


Agreed, though you need to look at this in the context of its post-War history which has included French interference, an attempted CIA coup (as mentioned already), Israeli invasions & Muslim Brotherhood uprisings. The Assads are Alawites ruling a Sunni majority nation with a significant Shi'ite minority. What does that mean? It means they're sitting on a power keg and the fuse would be lit the moment they were removed. What's happening now is just as bad, of course, though that's a proxy war for the most part being waged by external powers. Btw, you may be interested to know Assad was drinking tee with the Queen of England in Buckingham Palace not so very long ago. He also hung out with the Pope

Meanwhile, Russian and Syrian air strikes are killing combatants and non-combatants indiscriminately. This is in contrast to the laws of armed conflict where proportionality and discrimination in attacking targets is stressed.


According to the Western media. I don't like the term 'collateral damage,' but if the terrorists NATO and its allies sent in there are now holed up with civilians, then collateral damage is unavoidable. The Western-backed terrorists have killed far more civilians, and we all know that when it comes to bombing hospitals and other civilian targets America, Israel and Saudi take gold, silver and bronze. Meanwhile, a leaked US memo actually praised the Russian's efficiency in bombing ISIS https://rbth.com/international/2016/03/ ... ria_574179

So I do find it strange that a reporter who travels to Syria only sees one side of the conflict and ignores the many examples of war crimes by the government and its backers.


The reporter was entirely neutral. She had no reason to lie. It's the Western media which is now on a mission to shift the blame for this mess onto Assad because Washington's master plan to get rid of him (as Clarke predicted) has been foiled by the Russians

Its clearly a propaganda effort by Assad and Putin


No, I think it is you who has made yourself an agent for American propaganda on the conflict and an apologist for the latest in their long series of war crimes, which are so far estimated to have killed 8 million Muslims since the beginning of the 1990s.

[Zhivago]

Syria is a nation with significant tribal divides. Some support Assad, some don't. Those protesting against him obviously didn't and still don't. Assad used violence against them. He helped turn non-violent demonstrators into an armed insurgency. Weapons are freely available in the region - the border with Iraq is porous enough to allow pretty much anything to cross. This isn't the first time that the Syrian regime has responded with excessive violence, the rebellion in the 1980s saw Syrian planes bombing civilian targets, with thousands of civilian deaths.

As civil wars continue, they tend to get more bloody. Ordinary people lose any restraints and yes they do morph into people capable of carrying out despicable acts. If you read any account of mass violence, you will easily find out that the vast majority of perpetrators were normal people before hand, not closet psychopaths.

There is definitely outside assistance, but to both sides. Hezbollah have been supporting Assad for some time, before that, his position was far less secure. A variety of countries are helping the opposition. The more extreme elements of the opposition have different origins in some respects. ISIS has taken advantage of the collapse of regime power in certain parts of the country. WHilst they are attracting many ideologically driven fighters, there will be just as many who are siding with them because they offer an effective opposition to Assad. Morals go out of the window when faced with defeat and death. Incidentally, Islamic rebellion in SYria is not new, there are examples of this from the 1970s and 1980s.

You are referring otthe same UN inspections team which broadly dismissed Syrian government explanations for the presence of Sarin gas on the battle field? Was Assad personally aware of the deployment of chemical weapons on that day in that location? Its perfectly possible that he was not. CHemical weapons have been used on a number of occasions, its entirely possible that control was handed down to battlefield commanders who were unaware of the bigger picture.

WHy Syria and not Saudi? Saudi isn't engaged in a civil war. The uS would have minimal interest in Syria if not for the civil war. The Syrian government has been pro-Russian for a long time so the US aren't that friendly towards them, but there would be no support for opposition groups to the current scale if not for the murderous response by the regime towards what was legitimate protest. For the record, the Saudi government is almost as repellent as that of Assad, but lets not pretend that oil doesn't make us ignore some of the less savoury elements.

Israeli actions against Hezbollah aren't new. I strongly suspect that Tel Aviv is concerned at security along the Golan Heights and is taking steps to ensure that a terrorist organisation that wants to destroy Israel doesn't get too powerful.

The Turks claim that the Russian plane infringed their airspace. It certainly did, albeit for a short period of time. An overreaction - very much so.

Russia supports Assad and some Nato countries have supported the rebels. Every nation has its own political views on the matter. You cant condemn one without condemning both sides. Personally, Id be quite happy to allow both sides to fight it out on their own and just provide humanitarian support.

Im very aware of whats happening in Syria. Ive had the benefit of reading literature not in the public domain on the matter. Thanks for asking though.

Previous US activity isn't entirely relevant. The Arab Spring took on a life of its own, thanks to the internet, and I doubt that anyone in Washington would have expected such a widespread outpouring of anger against established regimes. Its often forgotten that during the Arab Spring, American allies were undermined as much as the opposition. If you seek to place the blame for the conflict purely on the west, then you ignore the role of the Assad regime. That would be intellectually dishonest. The current Baathists took power in a Coup and have held onto power through authoritarian government ever since; not a model for legitimate government of the people by the people.

Some other information you might be interested in. Those election results where Assad won over 90% of the votes were uncontested. Not exactly a beacon for a modern democracy is it? Until the new constitution was released in 2012 (after the civil war started) Syria was a one party state. Is it surprising that democracy protestors wanted to see change?

Meanwhile, Russian and Syrian air strikes are killing combatants and non-combatants indiscriminately. This is in contrast to the laws of armed conflict where proportionality and discrimination in attacking targets is stressed. Yet if Nato planes were doing a fraction of this damage in Afghanistan, there would be outrage. Somehow, Putin and Assad are praised for doing far worse than the West, but the same people who shout loudest whenever a Nato aircraft accidentally kills civilians.

So I do find it strange that a reporter who travels to Syria only sees one side of the conflict and ignores the many examples of war crimes by the government and its backers. There are plenty of eyewitness reports from those who have been on the ground in Syria which contradict her, so why do you automatically believe her and not them? I'd see your perspective if there was merely one or 2 contradictory reports, but there are far more than that. Its clearly a propaganda effort by Assad and Putin, but of course its only your opponents who are blinded by propaganda. Im not suggesting that the opposition are made up of nice people with good intentions, but if you cant see the crimes of the Syrian and Russian governments here then I worry about your sense of perspective.

You'll appreciate this:
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n01/seymour-m- ... o-military

And interesting info about the tribes (especially those with strong links to Qatar and Saudi):
https://research-repository.st-andrews. ... balism.pdf

[UGagain]

Syria is a nation with significant tribal divides.

That's just flat out racism typical of the zionist orientalist mindset.

[UGagain]

So the Syrian government doesn't have the right to defend itself? Not even when under seige from Western-backed terrorists? So Russia doesn't have the right to help a country under seige from terrorists defend itself when invited to do so? Is that what you're saying?

Nobody has the right to defend themselves from Sandy's team.

[UGagain]

No, I think it is you who has made yourself an agent for American propaganda on the conflict and an apologist for the latest in their long series of war crimes, which are so far estimated to have killed 8 million Muslims since the beginning of the 1990s.

And many more Africans.

[UGagain]

[cashead]

Solution's obvious, everyone.

[UGagain]

Debbie Wasserman-Schultz has just accused Bernie Sanders' supporters of being like Trump supporters on CNN.

Way to go Debbie! That'll get 'em voting for Hillary for sure.

Utterly retarded.

[Lizard]

I'm in 'Murica at the moment. I have little doubt that at some point I'm going to offend some local (either accidentally or possibly on purpose) by raising politics and/or religion (or possibly their mis-use of the English language).

[morepork]

I'm in 'Murica at the moment. I have little doubt that at some point I'm going to offend some local (either accidentally or possibly on purpose) by raising politics and/or religion (or possibly their mis-use of the English language).

We could meet up and taunt some liberals.

Remember. God hates Lizards!

I mean fags. God hates fags.

[Lizard]

If you are any near the Orange County Convention Centre in Orlando, FL, give me a shout. We can go and explain to some feminists how the first female candidate for POTUS only got there by riding on the coat tails of her philandering husband.

It's nice that America has sorted out its beer (even my hotel has a good craft selection) but WTF is up with the coffee?

[cashead]

If you are any near the Orange County Convention Centre in Orlando, FL, give me a shout. We can go and explain to some feminists how the first female candidate for POTUS only got there by riding on the coat tails of her philandering husband.

I'm sure you can do this without looking like a misogynistic shithead.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

If you are any near the Orange County Convention Centre in Orlando, FL, give me a shout. We can go and explain to some feminists how the first female candidate for POTUS only got there by riding on the coat tails of her philandering husband.

I'm sure you can do this without looking like a misogynistic shithead.

I think that would rather defeat the purpose!

[morepork]

If you are any near the Orange County Convention Centre in Orlando, FL, give me a shout. We can go and explain to some feminists how the first female candidate for POTUS only got there by riding on the coat tails of her philandering husband.

I'm sure you can do this without looking like a misogynistic shithead.

Non existent. Find someone that speaks Italian.

[UGagain]

THE FRAUDULENT KENTUCKY PRIMARY

CLINTON won by 2000 out of 413,000 votes: 46.8-46.3%

Lundergan Grimes, the chief Elections officer for the state of Kentucky, told voters that electing Hillary Clinton is more important than doing her job.

Card readers malfunctioned and votes were fully erased from Pike County, Kentucky. This gave Clinton the lead. At one point, all Pike County data represented all zeroes in the vote totals. Later, 20 percent of the total votes were missing and Clinton gained the lead.

WKYT reported that the AP had actually “erased all votes from Pike County”. The numbers pushed Clinton back up by over 4,000. The Pike County Clerk’s Office said that there was an issue with one of their card readers, and it ended up causing them to have a delay in posting their numbers.

Election fraud was reported in 31 counties. There were at least 76 calls to the hotline of the Office of the Kentucky Attorney General, Andy Beshear. According to Kentucky news station WSAZ, ‘Complaints included procedural and legal questions, voter assistance, [issues with] voting machines, voter identification, residency, election officials, electioneering, poll disruption and vote buying.’

CUMULATIVE VOTE SHARES- JEFFERSON COUNTY

As is virtually always the case, the establishment candidate (usually a Republican) gains cumulative precinct vote shares in the largest (usually Democratic) counties. It is counter-intuitive. Jefferson is the largest county in KY and Clinton is the establishment candidate. Her cumulative vote share increased by 7.4% (55.9% to 63.3%) after 85% of smaller precincts were counted! The probability P of this vote spike occurring by chance is essentially ZERO:

P =1 in 6.7 billion if we assume a 2% MoE in a poll of 90,000 respondents
P= 1.49E-10= normdist (0.559,0.633,0.02/1.96,false) .

https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/20 ... gon-recap/

[Lizard]

Where's the independent international observers?

[UGagain]

Where's the independent international observers?

Not only no observers, they've canned exit polls from now on.

You couldn't make this shit up.

[Zhivago]

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016 ... ction-2016

[zer0]

[Zhivago]

He should run as an independent.