17-Apr-18 World View -- As Syria's al-Assad attacks Idlib, he may consider chemical weapons essential

[CH86]

Globalists who call for intervention in Syria have no respect for the concept of sovereignty of nations, especially of non-western countries, or of concept of the consent of the governed within the west. The likely result of globalists continuing their present path is both World War and Civil War. Assad has Not Attacked the US, Europe or Israel, same as back in the 1990s Milosevic never attacked the US, Nato,or Israel. Assads and His Forces are Just doing their own business within their country and suddenly a screen of NATO Forces just magically appears in front of them for no reason at all. Assad has done nothing wrong to the US, Europe or Israel to justify that screen of forces being there. Same as Milosevic over 20 years ago, Milosevic had done nothing bad to the West to Justify that screen of US and European troops being there suddenly blocking the Serb forces from their objectives.

We went to war with Germany And Japan in WW2 because Japan attacked us and Germany Declared war on us shortly afterwards. The decisive battles were fought from mid-1942 to the beginning of 1943 after which the results of WW2 were pretty much set in stone, after those battles we were going to win, that was the conclusion whose clarity increased day by day. What prolonged the war into 1945 was a self-inflicted obstacle; The demand for regime change in Germany, Italy and Japan. Axis Leaders fought to the bitter end because they knew they would probably be executed as war criminals if they surrendered. Take that away, the Axis probably would have surrendered sometime in 1944.

All governments that are able to establish themselves are legitimate.

[Guest]

Jack, in an era of fake news where no on wants to believe anything they read or see in the media, how are people to judge what is fact? You both want to stand back and say something along the lines of 'prove it'. How? Do you expect people to fly you out to the location? What you both contribute to the conversation is less than nothing. Lee is as childish as the people (or person) he attacks on the thread. Out of curiosity, where do you get your facts? I really want to know. Is there a source you trust?

[Jack Edwards]

Guest said:

Jack, in an era of fake news where no on wants to believe anything they read or see in the media, how are people to judge what is fact? You both want to stand back and say something along the lines of 'prove it'. How? Do you expect people to fly you out to the location? What you both contribute to the conversation is less than nothing. Lee is as childish as the people (or person) he attacks on the thread. Out of curiosity, where do you get your facts? I really want to know. Is there a source you trust?

Good question and not easily answered. I find it entertaining that you others think I've taken a position on this whole Syria thing. I haven't. No idea. I've just taken a position on listening to others before blindly believing things.

Some rules I use for gleaning the truth from the news of the day:
1. It isn't what they say. It's what they do, the questions they ask and what they don't ask that tell you the most. Whenever you read or listen to something - ask yourself - why did they ask that? Why did they report that? What would I have asked if I were asking them questions? When you see big holes - explore those holes.
2. EVERYONE filters the information they perceive and report with their own bias. Figure out what bias the reporter/writer uses. Seek out ones that seem to have the bias for revealing true things related to the principles they value - then interpret that information understanding that bias exists. Alan Dershowitz presents factual information from the perspective of a classic liberal and supporter of Israel. Andrew Napolitano presents factual information from the perspective that the best system of governance is libertarianism. Johnathon Turley present presents factual information with his bias for adhearance to constitutional law. Whenever a pundit ALWAYS repeats the party line - they probably aren't worth paying attention to. Look for people that call a spade a spade regardless of their political affiliation.
3. Try to empathize with each side - and understand why they think that way. VERY hard to do, and very uncomfortable. Seek out opposing view points - don't just get your information from Fox News or just CNN. Read across the spectrum - find people that make intelligent arguments - read them. Identify what you agree with and don't and why - talk out loud to yourself and debate the positions to yourself - it will help you clarify your thought. People that just appeal to emotion - avoid.
4. Remember the hypocrites and avoid them. How many Republicans criticized President Obama for his golfing habit and the government money it took to support that? How many of those same Republicans criticize Trump for doing the same thing? When you find people that always interpret information through their bias of dislike for an opposing political viewpoint - avoid those sources.
5. Most people think they are logic based creatures. This is simply not true. Most people exist in a system and like things a certain way - then cherry pick facts to fit their bias. Anyone that tells you they are always objective is lying or worse - not self aware. Everyone uses bias in the way they process information
6. There is a constant temptation to reduce positions to being GOOD and EVIL. While there is certainly good and evil in this world, most issues are complex and have some of both in them. When you find pundits demonizing the opposing side (calling gun rights people or for that matter pro-choice people "baby killers") avoid them, they aren't interested in truth, just in getting narrow minded people to agree with them. Avoid echo chambers of thought.

Lastly - John does an excellent job of reporting facts within his bias. His bias is that things fit into his model of Generational Dynamics. He tells you when it's opinion and he's not afraid to tell you when he's sure something will happen. I've been reading him for over 9 years every day. John doesn't lie - he states the facts as he sees them - within his frame of bias - often bluntly.

Regards Jack.

[thomasglee]

Guest said:

Jack, in an era of fake news where no on wants to believe anything they read or see in the media, how are people to judge what is fact? You both want to stand back and say something along the lines of 'prove it'. How? Do you expect people to fly you out to the location? What you both contribute to the conversation is less than nothing. Lee is as childish as the people (or person) he attacks on the thread. Out of curiosity, where do you get your facts? I really want to know. Is there a source you trust?

Good question and not easily answered. I find it entertaining that you others think I've taken a position on this whole Syria thing. I haven't. No idea. I've just taken a position on listening to others before blindly believing things.

Some rules I use for gleaning the truth from the news of the day:
1. It isn't what they say. It's what they do, the questions they ask and what they don't ask that tell you the most. Whenever you read or listen to something - ask yourself - why did they ask that? Why did they report that? What would I have asked if I were asking them questions? When you see big holes - explore those holes.
2. EVERYONE filters the information they perceive and report with their own bias. Figure out what bias the reporter/writer uses. Seek out ones that seem to have the bias for revealing true things related to the principles they value - then interpret that information understanding that bias exists. Alan Dershowitz presents factual information from the perspective of a classic liberal and supporter of Israel. Andrew Napolitano presents factual information from the perspective that the best system of governance is libertarianism. Johnathon Turley present presents factual information with his bias for adhearance to constitutional law. Whenever a pundit ALWAYS repeats the party line - they probably aren't worth paying attention to. Look for people that call a spade a spade regardless of their political affiliation.
3. Try to empathize with each side - and understand why they think that way. VERY hard to do, and very uncomfortable. Seek out opposing view points - don't just get your information from Fox News or just CNN. Read across the spectrum - find people that make intelligent arguments - read them. Identify what you agree with and don't and why - talk out loud to yourself and debate the positions to yourself - it will help you clarify your thought. People that just appeal to emotion - avoid.
4. Remember the hypocrites and avoid them. How many Republicans criticized President Obama for his golfing habit and the government money it took to support that? How many of those same Republicans criticize Trump for doing the same thing? When you find people that always interpret information through their bias of dislike for an opposing political viewpoint - avoid those sources.
5. Most people think they are logic based creatures. This is simply not true. Most people exist in a system and like things a certain way - then cherry pick facts to fit their bias. Anyone that tells you they are always objective is lying or worse - not self aware. Everyone uses bias in the way they process information
6. There is a constant temptation to reduce positions to being GOOD and EVIL. While there is certainly good and evil in this world, most issues are complex and have some of both in them. When you find pundits demonizing the opposing side (calling gun rights people or for that matter pro-choice people "baby killers") avoid them, they aren't interested in truth, just in getting narrow minded people to agree with them. Avoid echo chambers of thought.

Lastly - John does an excellent job of reporting facts within his bias. His bias is that things fit into his model of Generational Dynamics. He tells you when it's opinion and he's not afraid to tell you when he's sure something will happen. I've been reading him for over 9 years every day. John doesn't lie - he states the facts as he sees them - within his frame of bias - often bluntly.

Regards Jack.

An excellent analysis, well thought out and written. Thank you.

One thing "guest" does, which is irritating, is attack people then, when they respond, accuses them of being the attacker.

I have read John's posts for nearly as long as you and I too appreciate his direct approach and his penchant for the truth. As you indicate, he fully believes what he is writing and doesn't lie. Also as you indicate, lying and being wrong are two different issues. I never think John lies and I rarely think he is wrong. In this case, I am just dubious about the reports based on my own understanding of issues and, primarily, because I do buy into John's projections for the coming crisis war and do believe that we will be allied with both Russia and Iran. As such, it makes me believe that these accusations of supposed Iranian and Russian backed (that is who backs Assad) chemical attacks are misleading. It is John's projections that lead me to believe that it is the Sunni backed rebels who are either faking them (still haven't seen any evidence) or even using them against their own people (they've been known to "sacrifice" the lives of their brothers and sisters for the "greater good") to bring conflict between the USA and the Russians and Iranians.

[John]

> Lastly - John does an excellent job of reporting facts within his
> bias. His bias is that things fit into his model of Generational
> Dynamics. He tells you when it's opinion and he's not afraid to
> tell you when he's sure something will happen. I've been reading
> him for over 9 years every day. John doesn't lie - he states the
> facts as he sees them - within his frame of bias - often
> bluntly.

That's like saying the Einstein reports only facts about the universe
that fit his bias, and his bias is the Theory of Relativity.

[Heisenberg]

> Lastly - John does an excellent job of reporting facts within his
> bias. His bias is that things fit into his model of Generational
> Dynamics. He tells you when it's opinion and he's not afraid to
> tell you when he's sure something will happen. I've been reading
> him for over 9 years every day. John doesn't lie - he states the
> facts as he sees them - within his frame of bias - often
> bluntly.

That's like saying the Einstein reports only facts about the universe
that fit his bias, and his bias is the Theory of Relativity.

He did do this. I don't think he ever accepted quantum mechanics because it ran contrary to the theory or relativity. Any physical phenomena that exists outside of our models of the world is typically just attributed to randomness (noise). It isn't until after the fact when we can understand it through models that scientists accept it. I haven't finished the book but "Structure of Scientific Revolutions" covers this and is a really interesting read.

[FishbellykanakaDude]

> Lastly - John does an excellent job of reporting facts within his
> bias. His bias is that things fit into his model of Generational
> Dynamics. He tells you when it's opinion and he's not afraid to
> tell you when he's sure something will happen. I've been reading
> him for over 9 years every day. John doesn't lie - he states the
> facts as he sees them - within his frame of bias - often
> bluntly.

That's like saying the Einstein reports only facts about the universe
that fit his bias, and his bias is the Theory of Relativity.

He did do this. I don't think he ever accepted quantum mechanics because it ran contrary to the theory or relativity. Any physical phenomena that exists outside of our models of the world is typically just attributed to randomness (noise). It isn't until after the fact when we can understand it through models that scientists accept it. I haven't finished the book but "Structure of Scientific Revolutions" covers this and is a really interesting read.

Is there some kind of "Law", akin to Godwin's Law (referencing Hitler), regarding referencing Einstein oratorically?

Perhaps we should call it "That Other Heisenberg's Law".

..I think it's meme worthy! Let's DO IT KIDS!!




Aloha! <shaka!>

[GaryB]

What do you all think about the article at Zerohedge entitled: OPCW Investigators Reportedly Found "No Evidence" Of Chemical Weapons At Syrian Facilities Bombed By US https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-04- ... -bombed-us

GaryB

[thomasglee]

What do you all think about the article at Zerohedge entitled: OPCW Investigators Reportedly Found "No Evidence" Of Chemical Weapons At Syrian Facilities Bombed By US https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-04- ... -bombed-us

GaryB

I've expressed here my dubiousness when it comes to reports of Assad using chemical weapons and when doing so, have been attacked as a Putin supporting Trumpite. LoL It seems one must buy into the story or they're supporters of Assad and Putin.

[Guest 7 or 8]

Zero Hedge? The paid troll website that blamed the Ebola outbreak in 2015 on American NGOs? ZH, the website that pushes every Anti-American conspiracy imaginable. ZH, the website operated out of Bulgaria by owners who openly admire Vladimir Putin? ZH, the website that has been predicting America will collapse, be defeated, or implode within days or weeks virtually every day for over a decade? You mean that Zero Hedge? Is that where you people get your news? Lol! Zero Hedge is a fake news mills rivaled only by RT Television. Why didn't you link to a story 'debunking' the chemical weapons attack on Russia Today Television?