Replies

When Syrian President Bashar al-Assad turned poison gas against the rebels and their families, everyone could agree that even in a civil war -- where passions burn hottest -- that's inhumane, and it's not forgivable.

Also not proven, so far. Why would Assad, who was supposedly winning, risk the ire of the world for using chemical weapons?

I'm skeptical he did. It is the "revolutionaries" (AlQaida) who has everything to gain from breaking a few eggs...

Amen Brother. I like the quote on your personal page: “The greatest challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda.”
Even if it is true that Assad used chemical weapons, for the US to take action to side with AlQaeda is asinine.

When Syrian President Bashar al-Assad turned poison gas against the rebels and their families, everyone could agree that even in a civil war -- where passions burn hottest -- that's inhumane, and it's not forgivable. Also not proven, so far. Why would Assad, who was supposedly winning, risk the ire of the world for using chemical weapons? I'm skeptical he did. It is the "revolutionaries" (AlQaida) who has everything to gain from breaking a few eggs...

Killing 100,000+ by bombs/bullets/torture is acceptable - killing a 1,000 or so with gas is inhumane. Makes as much sense as the Geneva Convention ruling against the original hot M-16 ammo because it would tear an arm or leg off as it killed a person - must have intact corpses to be humane about it - oh...wait...poison gas leaves the corpses intact and bombs and torture leave bits and pieces strewed about. I get so dang confused these days.