The deeply conservative (!) "Die Welt" in Germany has two pieces by Sy Hersh, completely debunking the supposed chemical attack by the Syrians at Khan Sheikhoun. It also paints a highly disturbing picture of the decision-making process in both the White House and the Pentagon.

The first one is a rather short conversation that includes all the goodies: the chemical attack in Syria was, once again, not a chemical attack by Syrian forces -- they hit a stash, just like both the Syrians and the Russians claimed at the time.

The piece also details that US forces are keenly aware that it was not a chemical attack, that the response (Tomahawk strike on Syrian airfield) was equally ridiculous and dangerous, and that the bellicose stance of the US vis-a-vis Russia is complete lunacy.

The longer piece by Hersh himself and displays in great details the disconnect between Trump and his military advisers, as well as between the upper echelons of the military and the troops in the region.

Just a snippet about the strike itself:

A Bomb Damage Assessment (BDA) by the U.S. military later determined that the heat and force of the 500-pound Syrian bomb triggered a series of secondary explosions that could have generated a huge toxic cloud that began to spread over the town, formed by the release of the fertilizers, disinfectants and other goods stored in the basement, its effect magnified by the dense morning air, which trapped the fumes close to the ground.

And the media went along for the ride, for the umpteenth time. Remember Brian Williams fawning about the beauty of the weapons?

At some point, this volatile mixture of warmongering and McCarthyism is going to start WW3, and they'll blame it on the Russians.

I think this quote illustrates the issue quite nicely:
“Did the Syrians plan the attack on Khan Sheikhoun? Absolutely. Do we have intercepts to prove it? Absolutely. Did they plan to use sarin? No. But the president did not say: ‘We have a problem and let’s look into it.’ He wanted to bomb the shit out of Syria.”

Yeah, no. That's pretty flimsy logic. We're all public figures if that's the case unless you manage to shun the internet completely and somehow manage to never offend anyone ever.

You're just reinforcing the notion that this is Internet vigilantism and McCarthyism-style witchhunting.

There's a reason that we only protect people from the effects of racism and that racism itself is not a crime. It's too subjective and open to interpretation and in no way could be judged fairly

To address your points:

>> Bush: Disaster. Remember, remember the Patriot Act?
GW is not up for re-election and to the best of my knowledge Jeb had nothing to do with writing the Patriot Act. He supports it, but almost all the candidates do. I'm not a huge fan of Jeb, but he actually seems like the smart one in his family. Would still prefer him not to be president.

>> Clinton: Lying, manipulative, currently under Federal investigation by America's FBI department. Really?
@newtboy already addressed the so-called "email-gate" or whatever. As for "lying, manipulative"? You're kidding, right? She's a politician. They're all lying and manipulative. Ultimately, I think Hillary will probably get the democratic nomination and while I'm not a huge fan, she's an order of magnitude better than any of the republicans.

>> Bernie Sanders: Self-purported Socialist. Lovely.
So what? "Socialist" is not a bad word. Many of the highest ranked countries for citizen health and happiness are socialist. America needs to grow the fuck up and get over it's childish clinging to McCarthyism. A bit of socialism would do it the world of good.

>> Ben Carson: I have no particular qualms, by all means intelligent, however, doesn't say anything beyond the bloated party line.
Ben Carson, "intelligent"? Are you fucking kidding me? The guy's borderline insane. How he ever got to be a surgeon baffles me.
This is a guy who thinks that "Joseph built the pyramids to store grain", that doesn't understand fucking magnets, er, gravity and believes evolution was ‘encouraged by’ Satan. He's a fucking moron.

>> That brings us full circle back to Trump... He has a real, tangible plan...
to fuck everything up? Seriously, Trump is an idiot and would be the worst thing to happen to the USA (and by extension the world) in decades. His ignorance is matched only by his ineptitude.

>> As for Obama, and I include him because many seem to think he is great for some reason..
a) I don't think he's great, he's been a huge disappointment and
b) he's irrelevant to this debate
but anyway...

>> His healthcare plan failed(look it up)
I did and it hasn't.

>> America is now over $18 Trillion in debt.
I wonder if the previous president starting two wars has anything to do with that?

>> And he insists on throwing pebbles at ISIS while the EU does all the fighting
Way too big a topic to address here. Post on another video if you want to discuss it further.

>> I am not necessarily saying that Trump is a good person, or would make a good President, but he would me loads better than the other shrimps for candidates...
He's not, he wouldn't and better than an invertebrate with a brain only barely recognisable as such is not a sufficient bar for the presidency.

I didnt read you crap properly, since you made it obvious in the first few words that you dont want to understand and do not realize that you are actually talking about yourself. Calling me a republican is another proof of you not being able to think outside of your black and white and biased prison.

Anyway, have you guys heard about the "Climate McCarthyism" lately?
Its obvious you havent (or chose to ignore it, as so many things that dont fit in your disgusting agenda), because it proves many of my points and is a disgusting proof that what you claim is not science anymore. And it has been going on for years. Many scientists have reported about such behavior, Svensmark collapsed on stage and other unbelievable things.
I have lost almost all my respect in scientists over the last few years because of this, and they were my heroes before. I remember how shocked I was when I first heard about it and didnt want to believe it. We live in 2014 and nothing has changed for thousands of years. Corruption is still the main driving factor. Objectivity? lol...


Congratulations:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcAy4sOcS5M
I despise people like you. You have no idea how much.

I disagree.
Calling a woman a whore and calling women whores are two separate things. Just because you have an opinion about 1 person (who happens to be a woman) doesn't mean you use that same opinion for all women.

I have no idea why there is so much sensitivity around this. new wave McCarthyism ?

Thank you for the promote!
In reply to this comment by radx:
*promote the immortal voice of Edward R. Murrow

The right wing pundits are constantly trolling for an angle with which to present Obama in a negative light. It doesn't really matter what he says or does, they'll spin it. The elitist angle has to be one of the funniest coming from the candidates that come from wealthy families.

And everybody should be reminded regularly of McCarthyism, especially when people like Bachmann start saying there needs to be an American test.

I guess it is also thoroughly commie of me to prefer "E pluribus unum", eh.
>> ^VoodooV:

>> ^hpqp:
Is it legal to have a giant "In God We Trust" sign in a government building in the US?

Sadly, yes, it is the legal motto of the US. Thank you McCarthyism. Obviously you're a communist for even asking the question.

>> ^hpqp:

Is it legal to have a giant "In God We Trust" sign in a government building in the US?


Sadly, yes, it is the legal motto of the US. Thank you McCarthyism. Obviously you're a communist for even asking the question.

A. Obama isn't a socialist.

He sure as hell isn't a free market capitalist and is no supporter of individual rights. His answer to every problem is higher taxes (if he had the balls to confess it's his goal) more spending and MOAR government.

B. Socialism doesn't always fail.

Historically it's been around in one form or another and sooner or later always falls prey to human nature. Private property rights are the bane of socialists.

C. That's not the ultimate goal of socialism.

Not on paper, but that's what it ends up being. The State > Individual at all times. Rights that can be revoked by the State at any time due to not being natural born rights are a fraud.

D. You don't know what communism is. Hint: Your description of Socialism's ultimate goal is pretty close, except Communism doesn't intend to control all freedoms, just economic ones. That's still not Socialism, though. Socialists by definition aren't communists.

Semantics. When the State owns all property, they own you. When the State dictates who may or may not receive health care, they own you.

E. Japan, Hong Kong, and a slew of other countries must import food, too. Their economies are failures?! Your economic analysis is a sham.

Also answering Jigga----I made no claim of a full analysis with pie graphs---the point is this: Russia has far more natural resources than the United States, yet communism failed. Shitty state-made products (tech stolen from USA), long lines for basic staples like bread and gulags for critics.

F. If you're comparing the Soviet Union's economic system to what Democrats and Obama envision, go right ahead.

Most democrats don't envision an economy much different than what you have now. The rich paying 40% top marginal tax rate instead of 35% isn't Socialist. It's certainly more socialist, but if that's socialism, what was the US when the rich paid over 90% in income tax in the 1950s? You know, during that time when McCarthyism was looking for anyone and anything to accuse of being a Communist?

Social Security started as protection for a very small part of the populace and expanded to cover more and more year after year. The original architects of Medicare and Medicaid probably didn't imagine leviathan programs losing 60 billion dollars a year to fraud, waste and abuse. But here we are!

Why wouldn't I share the wonderful leftist vision of the future? Because the left measures social programs based on what they're supposed to do, not how well they do. The left also views life as rich versus poor instead of right versus wrong. This fugue is played every day 'round here. "The rich are evil because their gains are ill-gotten, the poor are innocent victims of exploitation."

You're fooling yourselves if you think taxing the evil rich at 90% tomorrow will change anything. This isn't 1950. The evil rich will simply transfer the bulk of their wealth, investing in other countries. Why would anyone have an incentive to start businesses or create jobs if the federal mafia is going to confiscate most of their profits?

And hero, your little dig at the end of your post indicates you don't have much faith in your answers.


Hey gang, you're skeptical about these candidates? I'm here to tell you I'm not buying what you're selling either. I don't trust the results of the left's good intentions or even that their intentions are good.

A. Obama isn't a socialist.
B. Socialism doesn't always fail.
C. That's not the ultimate goal of socialism.
D. You don't know what communism is. Hint: Your description of Socialism's ultimate goal is pretty close, except Communism doesn't intend to control all freedoms, just economic ones. That's still not Socialism, though. Socialists by definition aren't communists.
E. Japan, Hong Kong, and a slew of other countries must import food, too. Their economies are failures?! Your economic analysis is a sham.
F. If you're comparing the Soviet Union's economic system to what Democrats and Obama envision, go right ahead. Most democrats don't envision an economy much different than what you have now. The rich paying 40% top marginal tax rate instead of 35% isn't Socialist. It's certainly more socialist, but if that's socialism, what was the US when the rich paid over 90% in income tax in the 1950s? You know, during that time when McCarthyism was looking for anyone and anything to accuse of being a Communist?

Seriously....

>> ^quantumushroom:

Take the Obama path to its logical conclusion.
Socialism always fails. We've got more than enough of it here in America already. The ultimate goal of socialists is to create a central power which ultimately controls all resources and property (and thus all freedom). Of course, the good socialists don't consider themselves superior to the people they control, it's just someone has to step in and regulate everything (while staying immune to the laws they inflict on others).
The Soviet Union tried all this already under the label communism, which is socialism without a second chance for dissenters. With natural resources far more massive than the USA's, the CCCP had to import grain.
Drug Prohibition started out small and trivial. The American income tax (a commmunist gift) started out small and trivial. The federal government started out small and trivial.
The left's tax addiction stops HERE AND NOW.

A great term to explain all this. Digital McCarthyism.

@MaxWilder (hmm, relation to gene?)

Habeas Corpus is getting a fair trial. These people were not getting that and instead judged before a proper trial. It does also touch on McCarthyism with the persecution for family relations, involvement with romulan commies and such sure, but I think it hits squarely on habeas corpus too. None-the-less it's a great episode. On par with the one where data has to prove he's a not a "tool" of starfleet, but a sentient being.

Habeus Corpus is the legal action through which a prisoner can be released from an unlawful imprisonment, or at least brought to a proper trial for examination of evidence against the prisoner. What exactly does this video, which is more about McCarthyism, have to do with Habeus Corpus?

Excellent episode, I must say. TNG addressed some major issues with society and the human condition.