It was Ammonium Nitrate and the rumor is--Hezbollah wanted access to the 2500 tons to use...in bombs/IEDs, etc.

I don't think zerohedge is a reputable source.
Why wasn't this found before the event., not that there's anything odd about looking for photographers at a KKK/Nazi rally. Of course you would want them to be comfortable participating in protests, you have to be to get decent photos of them.

Zerohedge : In April 2016, the authors writing as "Durden" on the website were reported by Bloomberg News to be Ivandjiiski, Tim Backshall (a credit derivatives strategist), and Colin Lokey. Lokey, the newest member revealed himself and the other two when he left the site. Ivandjiiski confirmed that the three men "had been the only Tyler Durdens on the payroll" since Lokey joined the site in 2015. Former Zero Hedge writer Colin Lokey said that he was pressured to frame issues in a way he felt was "disingenuous," summarizing its political stances as "Russia=good. Obama=idiot. Bashar al-Assad=benevolent leader. John Kerry=dunce. Vladimir Putin=greatest leader in the history of statecraft." Zero Hedge founder Daniel Ivandjiiski, in response, said that Lokey could write "anything and everything he wanted directly without anyone writing over it." On leaving, Lokey said: "I can't be a 24-hour cheerleader for Hezbollah, Moscow, Tehran, Beijing, and Trump anymore. It's wrong. Period. I know it gets you views now, but it will kill your brand over the long run. This isn't a revolution. It's a joke."

Got to love the country singer's straw man about Hitler and Japan and ignoring the fundamental issue of US policy in the Middle East and acting to protect oil interests over letting them self rule and work out whatever issues they have to work out. I understand the need to try and contain the fallout from the wars between the various Islamic factions (mostly Shia and Sunni) from spilling over to neighboring nations, but the US policy has been overt in serving US interests over the long term interests of the region since the 50's. The US solid backing of Israel, even in cases where it is clearly in the wrong, adds fuel to the fire.

And I know those on the right complain how Obama has backed away from Israel, though the evidence clearly differs as the US still refuses to tell Israel, to the degree we should, to treat people within its occupied zones with proper respect... and the fact so many Americans feel the need to protect Israel and favor Israel over its occupied territories no matter what, again adds fuel to the fire and shows those in Islam how under attack their faith is, which makes them stronger in their faith and more sure that they are on the right path, since the devil is working harder to put their faith down than any other faith... of course I hear this exact same argument from Christians all the time, how the devil is trying to put Christianity down proves that Christianity must be true... amazing how a little empathy would probably help world peace, but neither faith seems to have any... though I've seen enough FB memes about how Christians are so depressed because they have so much empathy and I wonder where it is, as I've yet to see any empathy from Christians as a whole. All of which digresses from the original point...

US foreign policy is directly responsible for the rise of ISIS/ISIL, whatever you want to call it... now ISIS has risen itself up to be a rather large threat via its actions, which are deliberately provoking, as it's easier to radicalize people when the world starts turning against Islam as a whole, as those on the Right are apt to do, than turn against the small segment that aren't peace loving. Of course the Right's preferred response to those provocations are to do exactly what ISIS has publicly stated they want. They want a large war against them, they'd love it if Republicans banned them from coming to the US as it would make lone wolf attacks in the US by US citizens more prevalent, which like they did with Miami (the shooter himself pledged allegiance to ISIS, but he also pledged allegiance to Hezbollah, which is fighting against ISIS)... Republican policies, especially those of Trump and Cruz are so on point with ISIS desires, one has to wonder if they themselves are tied with ISIS interests, or if they are tied to military interests that profit off continuing the war and sacrificing American lives in the name of war profiteering... but Republican Jesus said "Blessed are the warmongers and the war profiteers and cursed be the peace makers"... It was there on the Sermon on the Mount when he also said, "Blessed be the rich employer who pays his employees poorly, and cursed be those employees who are poor and needy and needing assistance. Surely I say unto you, if you give tax breaks unto the rich and cut benefits for the needy and the poor, I shall bless your Nation... oh and forget the sick and dying, they got themselves into their mess, they are responsible for getting out, only the well to do shall have healthcare." Again I digress though...

The number of attacks on this country will skyrocket if Trump wins, simply because it would be far easier to radicalize people after that. Trump and the Republican party are doing everything they can to appease what ISIS wants us to do, making their job easier.

And while this guy was a Muslim, the constant labeling of him as being with ISIS is a bit out there. Yes he claimed allegiance to ISIS, but he also claimed allegiance to Hezbollah, a group opposed to ISIS that is in fact doing a lot of the fighting against them. So it seems more likely that he was taken in by the anti-gay rhetoric of religion (one shared by the far right Christians) and stepped it up to a mass murder rampage.

Nobody would call those guy who took over the Oregon facility Radicalized Christian Terrorists, though that's what they were. They did it in the name of Christ, saying that God was the one who told them to do it. You don't blame a whole religion for an act of a few radical members. The right then complains that regular Muslims don't do enough to protest the actions of those few, but I don't see masses of Christians counter protesting the God Hates Fags people who are protesting soldier funerals, or will be at the funerals of the people killed at this club... in fact I saw the God Hates Fags people there at the scene and there wasn't a big crowd of Christians fighting against the radicalized Christians spreading hate... Matthew 7:5 may apply to their attitude towards the situation...

The fact the gun lobby won't let the CDC do it's job and collect data on gun violence just shows how insane political right is.

Then the right is blaming ISIS... the idiot pledged allegiance to ISIS and Hezbollah, even though they are enemies of each other. He clearly just had an issue with gays, and was using faith as an excuse. Most of the mass shootings in the US aren't done by Muslims in an act of terrorism, they are done by crazy people who have unfiltered access to guns.

I'd be fine if we don't close the gun show loophole or don't ban people from buying assault weapons, for now, so long as we first at least let the CDC get back to doing its job and collect data on gun violence. Then explore it in a few years of data collection to see what measures would be helpful. The fact the right refuses to let that happen must tell you that they know what the data will show, that some loopholes need closed.

And yes, if you are on the federal no flight list (and I haven't seen that this shooter was on such a list, just investigated twice), then you should certainly be delayed in getting a gun. That should be a huge red flag. You should then be told why you were denied and then have a right to argue for the right to own a gun and/or get off the no flight list. It should be a clear process to make such an application, and shouldn't require a lawyer. But odds are that most people on the no fly list aren't there for search history, or library records, but most are on the no fly list undoubtedly for far better reasons.

I'll fight to retain the right for most Americans to own a gun. Both a hand gun for personal home defense, and hunting rifles and the like. However if you are in a situation that requires an AR-15 to defend yourself, you are way over your head.... and don't give me some bull shit about protecting yourself from the government, remember how well having even more powerful weapons and training did for the people in Waco. Where do people who argue that those should be sold without restriction want to draw the line (and to be clear, I'm not arguing against the right to own one necessarily, but I am against buying it without restrictions, for a smaller wait time than it would take to buy a handgun)? Do we let people buy a bazooka? A surface to air missile launcher? A nuclear bomb? Where do you draw the line on putting restrictions, or at least a wait time on weapons of mass harm?

If Israeli attacks weren't fully funded proxy attacks from larger nations like the USA, you might have a point.
If Iran and Syria had not 'supported' Hezbollah, there would be no Palestinian area today, only Israel.
The reality is that if "Palestine" could defend itself like any other nation, Israel would be 1/2 it's size and not constantly expanding, and there would be hundreds of thousands more Palestinians who had not been killed by Israel and the isolation/starvation they caused.

It seems you're saying that any nation not busy expanding into it's neighbors is 'weak' and should be invaded? Maybe I read wrong?

If the Palestinian attacks weren't fully funded proxy attacks from larger nations like Iran And Syria you'd be dead right. As it is though, groups like HeZbollah are just an arm of the Iranian state launching attacks on Israel and testing it's resolve. It's horrible, but the reality is that if Hezbollahs attacks do more damage than is done in return, the attacks from them will continue to escalate as Iran throws more resources behind it. Regrettably we live in a world were restraint and being the better man are just signs of weakness encouraging the militaristic parties to push even harder to take advantage.

If you can simplify the actors in the deal down to just singular American and Iranian entities that have been immutable and unchanged over the decades then I'd be inclined to agree.

The thing is, the popular Iranian revolution against the Shah(and America by proxy) was essentially hijacked by the Ayatollah and his crew to form the state that they wanted. Within Iran public opinions are diverse, not much unlike in America. Things have changed over the years and American and Iranian policies can't be judged solely and only on what happened 30+ years ago, the current realities need to be recognized too.

America isn't the only aggressor today. Iranian leadership isn't merely loudly threatening to wipe out the west and even more vehemently Israel. Iran is actively training, equipping and funding military forces like Hezbollah that ARE launching direct attacks at Israel itself.

The issue is not as simple as America/Iran did this nasty thing and so they are wrong and the other is right. Both sides have legitimate grievances and cause for concern/mistrust. Bridging that is tough. IMHO, the fact that the Iranian government seems to trust it's own people less than America does is a big reason I mistrust their leadership more, but that's me.

Ahmadinejad threatens to remove Israel from the map. Ayatollah Khamenei does the same. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard(which reports directly to Khamenei) virtually founded and continually provides training, arms and funding to Hezbollah which it must be observed routinely attacks Israel.

I'm not trying to say Israel is some pure and innocent virgin. I'm pointing out some basic facts that are routinely denied by a great many people and I felt the need for the truth to be out there. I also fail to understand why pointing out facts like this requires anyone to come out and basically state that Israel deserves it, or at the very least that they started it and are the ones in the wrong.

It's quite possible for there to be 2 wrongs and no need to lesson the sins of either.

Hello again,

Just commented to a video and later noticed it was one of yours. Would've just commented to you instead had I noticed first. I have to say I still don't entirely understand where you come from in all this. Plainly and rightly you mistrust any American claims of humanitarian concern. However, in my view you seem to be misreading Obama's cues. If anything he's appeared very reluctant to go into Syria, as it'd be domestically very unpopular. As far as the Kissinger type pushers in America go, seeing Al Qaida sponsored rebels bleeding themselves out against Russian and Iranian backed Syrian military forces and even Hezbollah forces seems like a dream come true. I can hardly see cold hearted long game analysts in America wanting anything but to just grab popcorn and enjoy the show as their enemies mop each other up. I also see Obama's reluctant attitude as exactly what is being read by Assad and Putin in their responses and almost willful scorn for Obama's red line and apparent giddy eagerness to abandon the threats he'd tied to it. I just don't see the eagerness and enthusiasm for a march to war from America that you do. With an agreement to remove chemical weapons from the area, America is freed of the only possible concern it had about anything happening in the area. That seems evidenced by America's seemingly eager acceptance of it, and tacit recognition of Assad's control of the country out into 2014 in order to implement the agreement.

As for the angle I care about, what is your assessment of the UN inspection and their report? Unless you count them to be on the take of Western powers, or duped and stooged within the war zone where somehow America managed to influence them more than Assad I don't see any ambiguity to the findings. Samples from rockets, soil, and victims alike all tested positive for Sarin gas. The rockets found with Sarin on them had Russian engravings and the craters they could project trajectories from pointed towards a Syrian military base. I'm not sure how you reject all of that by pointing at 'counter evidence' gathered and presented solely by Syrian and Iranian sources.

I like Ron Paul's stance on non-intervention. I like Ron Paul a lot.
But what he is saying on Syria and the convoluted power system there is simply not true. There are Al Kaida fighters on the sides of the rebels. However, there are also Hezbollah fighters on the side of the Assad Regime.
If America's stance on what asserts a terrorist group and what not holds true interpolitically they, by their own theory can not stand by passively and watch. America HAS to do something- they allready "invested" too much into the region to now sit back and not act. WHAT exactly this intervention should look like is the question and you can see the current adminsitration suffer with a good answer to it.
Don't listen to the currently popular theme of "Gas-weapons are just another way to kill people". If you think the deployment of poison gas weapons into a urban warzone is the same as just "regular" bombardment you have to seriously go and read up on how gas-weapons behave in an urban environment especially WHEN combined with regular bombardment.
The use of this weaponry is an absolute show stopper, which makes it a lot more painful to realize that the USA itself is using enriched Uranium munitions and clusterbombs) - Nonetheless- the USA not acting now would be like saying: "You might not be as powerful and omnipotent as we are, but go ahead since we take this so seriously that we trivialize it to start our own wars".

Does it have to be military intervention? Hell, no.
Can it be expensive? Hell, yes.

The Use of UEAE-weapons (undiscriminatory extended area effect weaponry- i.e. stuff which even gets into protection shelters and doesnt worry which ones) is like lining up and shooting an entire part of a town by principle. Kinda like a poor man's nuke and even if it was a ruse by the rebels- this certainly warrants the current drama.
The USA invaded Iraq because they thought that Sadam Hussein had these weapons (fabricated charges or not, thats what they started the war on) so what exactly would be the consequences now if America sits back?
John Steward said on the daily show that this is like 7 year old bullies fighting on the playground. The irony is that he is frightingly right.
Again, I am against military intervention but this is some serious stuff.

I know very little about Syria beyond what is part of the major consensus narrative aka "history". But it's an interesting discussion to have, so my vote goes to "horrible idea", and here's why.

It's a civil war between bad guys on one side and bad guys on the other side, with civilians, as always, caught right in the middle of this meatgrinder. Foreign supporters of both sides keep adding fuel in the form of cash, weapons, training and personnel, all for their own geopolitical gains, of course. Nobody truly gives a fuck about the population, never has.

If any action is supposed to to be carried out for the benefit of the local population, the refugees and regional stability, I'd say two basic questions need to be answered first:

1) What's the situation?
2) What actions by exterior forces can improve this situation?

Judging by most articles these days, the modus operandi instead seems to be based on two entirely different questions: what actions would benefit our geopolitical/economical situation and what should this conflict's narrative look like to support our intentions.

If you look at all the major players involved, it seems clear to me to be a "stay-the-fuck-outta-this" situation.

US, Israel, Qatar, Turkey, Saudi Arabia + Emirates vs Syria, Russia and Iran. Egypt and Lebanon are "involved" on both sides -- Muslim Brotherhood and Lebanese Sunnis against Assad, General Sisi (neutral?) and Lebanese Shia pro Assad. Not to mention Al Qaeda against Assad and Hezbollah pro Assad.

Anytime the US finds itself on the same team as Al Qaeda, the situation needs to be reevaluated. And don't even get me started on those barbarians that cut off people's heads and eat their hearts in front of cameras.

And what's the primary geopolitical angle here? To cut the connection between Iran and the Lebanese Shia (Hezbollah)? I figure if they get isolated, they might lash out - violently. And those guys are much more capable than the rabble that makes up significant parts of the Syrian insurrection.

Once the Alawites and Shia in Syria get chopped up by those "rebels" after Assad was removed, things will get ugly real fast.

My suggestion: stop treating Iran like a pariah and start talking. Their regime might be a disaster, but the Persian people are well educated and much closer to our Western way of life than anyone else in that region. Get them, the Russians and the Chinese involved.

Then again, that's the White Man trying to solve the Brown Man's problems from the outside -- has that ever worked? Besides, it would reduce the threat of terrorism and war -- that's bad for business.

It ends as you say, when one side decides it not worth fighting anymore. Whether in time is deemed one of peace or war is political paperwork. The reality is any nation that sees advantage in fighting will, 9 times in 10, fight.

I disagree with what the expected results are if Israel simply stands aside militarily. Economically, I absolutely wish they'd pursue the framework for 'unilaterally' instituting a two state solution. Stopping the constant expansion of settlements into occupied territory being a big one.

I do not believe history shows that Israel simply ignoring Hamas and Hezbollah rocket attacks, and military build up will lead to a situation where those nations are less likely to escalate their attacks. I do not believe Syria or Iran will stop funding, training and arming those groups for any amount of good will shown by Israel. The truth is, those groups see inaction on Israel's behalf as signs of weakness, and weakness is an invitation to push the advantage and escalate further. Tell me I'm wrong in that, but the evidence is pretty widespread.

You're mistaking me for someone that figures Israel can do no wrong.

The video is about Israel bombing what they claim to be arms shipments from Syria to Hezbollah. I think the story is more than credible, considering Hezbollah's repeated use of Syrian weapons against Israeli territory.

Care to explain exactly how Syrian missiles and weaponry being sent over to Hezbollah contributes to a two state solution? Or do you also refuse to actually hold any position on the matter?

Yes, double standards can be found anywhere and everywhere you look in geopolitics, astute observation there. Are you interested in adding anything more than that to the discussion though?

There is an actual real world behind all of this. People are dying during our discussion. I've lost patience for people decrying an action without being willing to put forward and defend an alternative. The burden of proof lies as much on those championing inaction as it does on those championing action. Do you believe Israel should not intervene while arms are shipped to Hezbollah? Would you prefer that? It's a simple enough position, but unless you are gonna stand behind it or something else then you're not taking things as seriously as they deserve to be.