zlacker

>>hungle+(OP)
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Where is the evidence?

>>2OEH8e+2o1
The blog post is mostly a sea of text with no real citations and loose quotes. The author, though a famed journalist for his breaking of a story 50 years ago, has also made claims recently to defend dictators such as Assad; even going so far as to claim the US was going to fake Bin Laden's dead by dragging his body back to Afghanistan from Pakistan to pretend like he died in a missile strike. His reasoning for this? Well, basically apparently flying below the deck and stealth helicopters are impossible.

People need to come to grips that people can slowly become kooks over time (or maybe they were always crazy, but did one good thing and now have clout.) Snowden, Greenwald have made similar kooky remarks of late defending bad actors all over. It's bizarre, but not unusual.

>>partia+yp1
Exposing uncomfortable truths about the US/NATO dirty war in Syria hardly constitutes “defending Assad.”

Highly recommend the entire LRB series. https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v38/n01/seymour-m.-hersh/mil...

>>miguel+xr1
He actually did though. Saying the Syrian rebels gassed themselves (common Assad talking point [https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v35/n24/seymour-m.-hersh/who...] parroted by people like Tulsi Gabbard/Tucker/etc), and also said the Pentagon had a secret agreement with Assad and Putin to undermine Obama. He also offered absolutely no evidence of any of this.

>>partia+jt1
The OPCW leaks confirmed that the “rebels” staged gas attacks. That has never been refuted by anyone— only attacks against the messengers, similar to yours.

>>miguel+Jv1
Except the OPCW says themselves they have grounds to believe Assad did it. Any "leaks" were part of an ongoing investigation, and not conclusive. I'm absolutely baffled how naive people are in defense of people like Assad & Putin.