Not wanting any military action is fine and sensible. But giving Assad the benefit of the doubt is absurd.

This is looking accurate. No matter how many gas attacks there have been in the past and by other countries that were ignored, how many innocents are killed in other ways including by US bombing, how many Kurds Erdogan murders or people SA beheads or stones, this now is where we must act in a big way. War has somehow been collectively decided on. Democrats will fall in line or even lead the charge.

So you don't want to go to war but you want the person who thinks we are rushing to war to get removed from office because she takes a nuanced position in recognizing that killing a whole bunch of people in response to another guy killing people is just eye for an eye leaving everyone dead?

Might want to do some actual research into the topic instead of taking a WaPo opinion columnist as the complete truth. But that would require actual reading and research and critical thinking, as opposed to staying inside your low information echo chamber twittersphere.

You could always just post a link you think is better rather than trolling.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/tu...rticle/2619627

Do you see what I mean about nuance?

Exactly, she is putting forward the position that it WASN'T Assad. And she will continue to assert "no evidence" that Assad is behind chemical attack, just like Republicans continue to assert "no evidence" that Russia interfered in our elections. They're willfully looking away from the evidence.

This isn't true. The Democratic Confederation of Northern Syria is an autonomous region with 4.6 million people has freedom of religion, recognition of all ethnic groups, women's rights, democracy and is combating ISIS.

No, I've said this before and you continue to LIE about my positions. I want her primaried because she has shown a repeated pattern of being pro-Assad, including meeting with Assad as recently as a few months ago.

It seems your main purpose here might be to distract people from substantive conversation and facts. I wonder who would have that purpose.

Gabbard soft-endorsed the idea that it was a false flag and not Assad

Uh, you mean reading the_donald here, right?

Dan also made a weird aside about Obama arming bad hombres(and when pressed gave the same nonsense deflection with no source), huh, weird that all these Clinton voting reasonable people also think Obama is in cahoots with ****ing ISIS.

This is totally the wrong take.

I'm here for encouraging a full investigation. That doesn't make me pro-Assad.

We'll have to disagree about my characterization of your position.

U.S. Officials: Syria Gas Attack Consistent With Nerve Agent
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/u-...-agent-n742981

Syria poison gas attack has fingerprints of Assad government: U.S. intel official
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mi...-idUSKBN1762QV

Yet for Gabbard, it's not "he should be executed for these chemical weapons attacks," it's "IF he did it, he should be executed." She's trying to spread doubt about something that is pretty much known. If the sarin attacks were perpetrated by the rebels or ISIS, WHERE IS THEIR AIR FORCE? Those attacks came from the sky.

One time for some soothing absurdity.

Why do you allow this guy to call posters liars without asking him to prove the lies he's accusing people of making, or eat a ban? Not cool that he can casually drop that on people and walk away without a scratch.

I disagree that it is known - there are plenty of reasons for actors other than Assad to want to make it appear that he used chemical weapons - look at how everyone is cool with war now

The very first thing you have to do to BEGIN to have people take your absurd conspiracy theory seriously is provide a serious, viable alternative. General statements like this mean nothing.

Exactly. We are going to need some evidence in support of a relatively coherent alternative explanation, or it is going to be banhammer time.

Not sure if Syrians...

History has shown that the incident which starts a war should absolutely be viewed skeptically. It also shows that authority will come down hard on any skepticism. Knees have jerked. Drums are beating.

Saddam had anthrax and Assad waited 6 years into a war that he was winning to drop some Sarin, 'MURICA.

Finding out exactly who's doing the fighting in Syria outside of the Kurdish areas is a frustrating business. It's true, though, that most of the time you find a named force mentioned for 'the Rebels' or The FSA they turn out to be a jihadist group. This is a quote from the introduction to Patrick Cockburn's latest book, who's a pretty respected Irish journalist who writes for The Independent in the UK, and who's been covering the Middle East conflicts, largely from there, for years. And later on in the book, talking about the period just before the Russians became involved I saw a documentary on French TV a little while back about the moderate opposition in Syria, and how they'd been brutally repressed by the Regime in Damascus in the early years of the war. The film ended with those that had escaped talking about their depression now much of the country seemed in the grip of two opposing horrors, the Regime and jihadists.

I hope otherwise, and it's certainly the case that not all armed jihadist groups are equivalent to Islamic State, but it's difficult to be confident of continued armed moderate resistance outside of the Kurdish regions. Most politicians in the West talk around this issue in a way that I find pretty disingenuous at best. It's impossible to know for sure from where I am, though.

I absolutely don't want this post to be a defence of supporting the slaughter-happy Syrian Regime, or of conspiracy theories about the sarin attack. Just trying to undermine a complacent use of terms like 'Rebels' for anti-Regime forces, and any idea that just weakening the Regime is sufficient for a decent Syria policy. Letting them consolidate power, which was what, in effect, Trump's first few months amounted to, is no recipe for a better Syria either. Every time they've felt more secure they've used the opportunity to attack, which involves deliberate civilian slaughter.

A+

The gas was dropped from the air, none of the rebel groups(be they jihadist or otherwise) have a functioning airforce. So the conspiracy here is either:

1) Russia did it
2) Turkey did it
3) NATO did it
4) Israel did it?

Who exactly are we blaming here?

Nothing has created the greatest post WWII humanitarian crisis. The drum beating you are hearing is an auditory hallucination that is drowning out the sounds of the war that has been going on for years because the US doesn't care enough to stop it and the bad actors know it.

You forgot

5) No one did it
6) The USA did it