Comments by "" (@TheHuxleyAgnostic) on "The Grayzone" channel.

I don't think you know what an ad hominem is. https://laurencetennant.com/bonds/adhominem.html
3
Really? You're bringing in someone who has peddled 9/11 and covid conspiracies as your "debunker"?
1
@Kevin Tewey Go ahead, if you want to prove yourself to be a complete idiot. Simply reporting on the hundreds of accounts of Syrian chemical weapons use since 2013 isn't the same thing as saying the US should start a war with them. Should everyone stop reporting on human rights abuses in every country, in case the US uses it as grounds to start a war?
1
@Kevin Tewey Which ones were supported by the UN, UN inspectors, Germany, France, Switzerland, Nordic countries, multiple NGOs like doctors without borders, multiple legal human rights groups representing victims, hundreds of on the ground victims, dozens of on the ground hospitals, and multiple independent investigations?
1
@jimv803 You left out the part about them finding undeclared chemical weapons in 2015, and that chlorine wasn't on the list of banned substances because it also has standard uses. Oh geez, NGOs all work for the CIA now? You lot are nutty.
1
@jimv803 They're responsible for maybe 2% of chemical weapons uses. Keep pretending like disagreements about a single investigation at a single site debunks hundreds of accounts of chemical weapons use by the Syrian government, and a few accounts of uses by extremists means all uses were by extremists. https://www.npr.org/2019/02/17/695545252/more-than-300-chemical-attacks-launched-during-syrian-civil-war-study-says
1
@jimv803 The US deciding how it was going to independently react is actually a seperate issue from the UN investigating accounts of chemical weapons use. As per Russian orders, that single investigation, which you think debunks all the rest, didn't even assign blame. The US deciding who to blame, and how to react (Obama didn't drop bombs after the first major use of chemical weapons, instead negotiating the destruction of chemical weapons), was totally the US' decision. It's a method for killing people. There's not really a dispute that he was still dropping bombs on his own people, killing them, in a war he's already winning. Russia was vetoing over a dozen UN resolutions against Syria, like the US does with Israel. Russia is, likewise, a terrorist nation, that invades places it feels like, has massacred seperatists in the name of fighting terrorism, is involved in proxy wars, etc. The fact that there were hundreds of reports of chemical weapons use and they were still winning, and still being protected as best Russia could, wouldn't deter them from continuing use, even if all those reports were true. Making out like doctors without borders, who had their own bases of operations for awhile, and then also had contacts in hospitals across the country, is some CIA front group, is nonsensical. Making out like legal human rights organizations, and courts in countries like the Netherlands, which also took the US to court and ruled the war in Iraq illegal, are now CIA front groups, is nonsensical. Etc. The answer can be both that Syria is using chemical weapons and that the US shouldn't be bombing or invading countries unilaterally, or with tiny coalitions of the willing.
1
@palsyr4307 The UN, most NGOs, and most left leaning media, didn't support the war in Iraq, dumb dumb. Even simply reporting on chemical weapons use doesn't even mean you support bombing Syria. Just reporting on human rights violations around the world, isn't an invitation for the US to go blow up countries. And, the NPR is simply reporting on a report. They aren't the actual source. Are ad hominems the best you lot have? NPR bad, therefore they must be wrong, isn't an argument, ffs.
1
AOC voted against the CARES act and Jimmy still calls her a sellout and a shill. She's a member of the DSA, which has been holding M4A rallies. Her progressive PAC just helped get more progressives elected to congress. Jimmy simply runs off his mouth and somehow thinks he has more progressive cred than her. He's a moron. He thinks holding a vote guaranteed to fail will lead to some progressive wave of voting in 2022, enough to get a majority in both the house and senate, and then pass M4A? He thought letting Trump win would bring about a massive wave of progressive voting, as well. If bitch Pelosi considers the threat a bluff, then what? Abstain and let a Republican speaker win? Vote for someone else (who?) and paralyze the House (with corporate Dems, Republicans, and the corporate media, blaming progressives for the House not being able to accomplish anything)?
1
Progressives are already behind M4A. The only matter is whether holding a vote guaranteed to fail will accomplish anything. Jimmy thinks it might lead to a progressive wave of voting, come 2022, and if you win enough seats in both the House and Senate, you could try again. Jimmy also thought letting Trump win in 2016 would bring about a massive progressive wave of voters, so he's not the best strategist, or forecaster. AOC's progressive PAC just helped get more progressives elected to congress. Jimmy calling her a shill, for disagreeing on tactics, isn't helpful and just straight up bullshit. That's exactly what he wants his own "plan" to end up doing. I don't recall Jimmy promoting progressive candidates as much as he possibly could, leading into the election. He was busy whining about Colbert crying, shit Obama (no longer an actual politician) said, and bashing Trump's only viable opponent, basically doing attack ads for the Trump campaign.
1
@cpj75010 And now he's calling her a "shill", which is pure bullshit. The Tea Party attacked mainstream Republicans, they didn't attack their own Tea Party friendly politicians. Jimmy is doing his best to destroy the credibility of the most progressive politians in congress. He doesn't give a crap. He proved in 2016 that he doesn't really give a crap who's in charge. He stupidly thinks fascists and neolibs are samesies. He, basically, ran an attack ad campaign, for Trump against Biden, leading into the 2020 election, as well. He could have been organizing M4A protests all along. He could have promoted DSA M4A rallies all along. You know, before the elections that just happened. The Civil Rights Act was held up by a minority filibuster, back when that was an actual thing. It didn't lose to a majority vote. The majority could quickly reintroduce it, and then held out through another minority filibuster. If you have to threaten the speaker election for a vote, then it likely won't be reintroduced until the next time you can threaten the speaker election. There's already plenty of agitation in the streets. Republicans, especially, don't care, and they control the senate, atm. Things would have to escalate a lot more for them to act.
1