Her "report": https://www.tulsi2020.com/record/reports-chemical-attacks-syria
Searched but only see this mentioned by Kirblar so sorry if old
Searched but only see this mentioned by Kirblar so sorry if old
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Tulsi Gabbard posts conspiracy theory about Syrian chemical attacks being false flags to frame Syrian govt
- Thread starter BAD
- Start date
She is a vile awful human being who props up dictators and mass murderers and peddles in alt-right conspiracy theories while lashing out at gay people. It's really embarrassing to have her in my political party.
And some people think I'm crazy for liking Kamala over her lol. Always knew Tulsi was on some bullshit. But people like TYT signal boost her because she supported Bernie that one time.
Kamala has her own dirt, but holy shit, the only thing that would make Tulsi a more likely Russian plant is for her to reveal a tattoo of Putin on her ass.
So, I read through the Bellingcat article. I do wish that a more major news outlet would verify this, because I have never heard of this news source before in my life. So lets assume that every bit of information in this article is true. I'm not an expert on weapons, so I'm not going to bother questioning what Bellingcat is dishing here for the sake of argument.
For starters, lets look at the first statement made on Gabbard's website: "There is evidence that both the Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad as well as the armed opposition groups aligned against him have used chemical weapons (CW) during the Syrian war."
This statement basically says two things: one, that Assad has used chemical weapons against his people. I fail to see how she is being an Assad apologist with a statement like that on her website as literally the opener of what she talks about. Secondly, that opposition groups against Assad have also used chemical weapons. Bellingcat never disputes this claim. Gabbard is skeptical of two particular attacks that happened 4 years initial reports of chemical weapon use in Syria by the Assad regime.
Now, lets say for the sake of argument, that relying on this Postal guy is really stupid and that the information here is discounted even by Postal himself. This still doesn't really get into the crux of the argument that Gabbard is making here. The crux of what she is saying isn't that Assad is a great guy and we should leave; it's that we should be more skeptical of initial reports about these kinds of situations and actually investigate instead of firing missiles based on social media reports like Trump is doing. Will we not learn the lesson of going into Iraq based on lies of weapons of mass destruction?
Beyond that, I continue to remain apprehensive of supporting more wars with the aim of regime change. Is there a single example post-WWII of it actually working for us? Maybe South Korea counts? But every situation after has backfired in horrid ways, for both those in the US and for those we were trying to "help". Why not let Syria choose her future for herself?
For starters, lets look at the first statement made on Gabbard's website: "There is evidence that both the Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad as well as the armed opposition groups aligned against him have used chemical weapons (CW) during the Syrian war."
This statement basically says two things: one, that Assad has used chemical weapons against his people. I fail to see how she is being an Assad apologist with a statement like that on her website as literally the opener of what she talks about. Secondly, that opposition groups against Assad have also used chemical weapons. Bellingcat never disputes this claim. Gabbard is skeptical of two particular attacks that happened 4 years initial reports of chemical weapon use in Syria by the Assad regime.
Now, lets say for the sake of argument, that relying on this Postal guy is really stupid and that the information here is discounted even by Postal himself. This still doesn't really get into the crux of the argument that Gabbard is making here. The crux of what she is saying isn't that Assad is a great guy and we should leave; it's that we should be more skeptical of initial reports about these kinds of situations and actually investigate instead of firing missiles based on social media reports like Trump is doing. Will we not learn the lesson of going into Iraq based on lies of weapons of mass destruction?
Beyond that, I continue to remain apprehensive of supporting more wars with the aim of regime change. Is there a single example post-WWII of it actually working for us? Maybe South Korea counts? But every situation after has backfired in horrid ways, for both those in the US and for those we were trying to "help". Why not let Syria choose her future for herself?
Uh, how does that make her an Assad apologist? Let me help with that. This is the second paragraph from her website:
That's false-flag conspiracy logic for the benefit of the Assad regime and the only "evidence" for it is a complete nutter who should not be listened to or promoted at all and the only one who benefits from this is Assad. As why else promote this? Which benefits? Assad.
That she nonetheless adnits that Assad does use weapons at the start doesn't change any of this in any way, that she's discounting the existence of other attacks and supporting false-flag conspiracy theorist, which I noticed you completely danced around here by focusing just on her first paragraph and ignoring where she goes conspiracy theorist pretty blatantly.
Like, saying her point is "be skeptical of initial reports" is a hell of a euphemism and downplaying of what she's saying here. 'Cause yeah, skepticism CAN be a good thing. Emphasis on can be. But if you're skeptical of "initial reports" one should be even more skeptical of false-flag conspiracy theorists of all things.
'Cause yeah, I can't get over that fucking downplaying and slight of hand you tried here to defend her. People should be skeptical?
Okay fine let me play along with that for a moment. In this case, why should people be skeptical of THESE attacks in particular, which Gabbard specifically singled out as people should be skeptical of? What reason does she give and why is that reason good enough to be skeptical? 'Cause note, unlike what you're trying to frame it as, she's not telling people to be skeptical in general, but in regards to these attacks in particular, and after the first paragraph that's what she goes on and on and on about. Not some general healthy skepticism, or any such thing, but going on and on about s false-flag conspiracy theory about these attacks in particular. So why should people be skeptical of then and if so, if that's worthy of being "skeptical" why does it suddenly make sense to not be skeptical and favor false-flag conspiracy theories instead, as if those aren't things one should apply even more scrutiny then usual towards?
Because I couldn't help but notice you let that whole part, what the thread is actually about, slip past your gaze somehow, and I don't much appreciate that. I appreciate it even less while you yourself are parroting false-flag conspiracy theory talking points like "don't trust initial reports" as if that's a perfectly normal thing to do and treating everything as fine and dandy while knowing full well what you're doing by using that phrase, initial reports, to make them sound shady and inaccurate, when no they aren't sbd just leaving out/ignoring the part where she's promoting FALSE FLAG CONSPIRACY THEORIES instead. I don't appreciate that at all, because unlike the way you're trying to frame it, she's not just promoting some kinda healthy skepticism or anything, but telling people to ignore facts and support conspiracy theorists instead, and I for one don't much appreciate her doing that or you trying to gloss over that and trying to frame it as just healthy skepticism when it's so much more than that and much worse than that.
But let's try this again, and let me give you the benefit of the doubt, that you somehow managed to miss all that, the main breadth of the piece there she's promoting a false-flag conspiracy theory. How do you feel about that and do you think it's something she should be doing?
And before you try it again, yes, she did say certain attacks Assad us indeed responsible for, and that's good. And then right after that she goes into a false-flag conspiracy theory, and that's bad. That she starts off acknowledging that he's responsible for certain other unnaned attscjs dies not suddenly make that go away or become okay. She still goes into a false-flag conspiracy theory all the same.
So let's try this again: how do you feel about Gabbard promoting a false-flag conspiracy theory here, which she is explicitly doing quite blatantly, and do you think that's something she should be doing or not? And no, any "I don't know about that and am going to avoid talking about false-flag claims" ain't going to cit it considering thide are the actual breadth of the piece, what the majority of the page in the website is about, and you can't talk about it at all eithouy talking about those false flag claims (not in good faith anyway). So how do you feel about that and do you think that's something a candidate and a current member of Congress like Gabbard should be doing?
oh fuck off Gabbard. I forgot about this Assad enabling fuck.
The less she talks about Syria, the better
Bellingcat are good people, and have spent years debunking the Russia/Syria propaganda machine. They've done such good work, that the Russians have become actively hostile towards them. MH17, Ukraine, Syria, you name it.
The less she talks about Syria, the better
Bellingcat are good people, and have spent years debunking the Russia/Syria propaganda machine. They've done such good work, that the Russians have become actively hostile towards them. MH17, Ukraine, Syria, you name it.
Her inability to clarify and resolve her Syria baggage is more concerning to me than any of the actual statements. Like, where is the strategy for handling this? I don't see it. Seems like it would be pretty easy to establish yourself as the one who wants actual hard concrete evidence unlike the Iraq War that her main primary opponent voted for, but here we are. I'm assuming she can't be bothered because she doesn't have a chance and barely has a campaign.
Last edited:
Thanks for the response.The main reason I danced around the main point of the article, as you say, is because I have no way of verifying if it is true, since I'm not a weapons expert. This is why I said in the second sentence of my original post that I wished a more major news outlet would verify the claims Bellingcat is making here, since I've never heard of them before. If NY Times, Washington Post, etc. bring this up, then I will obviously take it substantially more seriously, as that means its not just some citizen journalist saying this. And I imagine it wouldn't exactly take long, either.
My response to it being a false flag conspiracy is that, Tusli Gabbard isn't just some random person. She's on the committee of foreign affairs of the House of Representatives, and has been on it for years. She would know a lot more about this details of our foreign policy and what's happening in other countries than me. Her questioning our reports of this nature isn't coming from an uninformed place or position. Now, if she's being dishonest here, then major news outlets will highlight discrepancies on her statement here that support what Bellingcat is saying, and I'll gladly eat crow.
Regardless of all that, though, I still don't see why we should be getting involved in Syria. It seems like a waste of our resources that won't help the people we're trying to help.
Please don't say this, or go there. The indifference of the west over the gas attacks is something I still can't get over. Over 400,000 dead and a war criminal still rules over the country. The same war criminal that Gabbard, despite all the UN fact finding evidence, decided to legitimise and meet in 2017
Holding this opinion unironically is so incredibly disgusting.
Excusing support for xonversion therapy, Islamophobia, promotion of propaganda for Assad. All because she's a fake anti-imperialist.
No it isn't. They both suck, but Biden is universally awful, while Tulsi has at least some good domestic policies, and she won't be exporting American imperialism and starting wars, even if her rationalization comes from dipshit Assadist conspiracy theories.
I completely understand where you're coming from. I used to think that the US should get more heavily involved in spreading democracy and fighting against the interests of larger foreign governments like Russia and China. Assad is a horrible war criminal that will spend eternity in hell for what he has done to his people. However, I cannot think of an instance of us fighting for regime change and it actually being successful, with the exception of WWII with replacing Japan's governmental system and replacing Germany's, and sort-of with S Korea (since there are problems with N Korea existing also). I can also understand being against meeting with Assad; he's a brutal dictator, right? If that is the case, then I would suggest reflecting on how FDR met with Stalin, Hoover met with Hitler, JFK met with Khrushchev, Nixon met with Mao; all of those foreign leaders were horrid despots responsible for countless death and strife. Yet that willingness for diplomacy has allowed for varying levels of peace and prosperity to occur. Yes, it doesn't always work; that meeting with Hitler didn't really help at all. But the willingness needs to be there and also needs to be consistent if we are to truly accomplish the goal of a peaceful world. At least, that is what I think.
She's not a fake imperialist, and supporting Biden is excusing segregationist apologist, so yknow.
I do not say it lightly that I would sooner vote for Trump than I would vote for her. Takes a special kind of idiot to side with Assad after everything that has happened in the last 9 years.
Biden is a boring uninspiring moderate.
Tulsi is a willing puppet of Putin and other dictators.
It isn't even comparable.
Yes, it absolutely fucking is. "Biden would start wars, Tulsi wouldn't" is straight up "Hillary the Hawk, Donald the Dove" bullshit completely repackaged. She is absolutely NOT an anti-imperialis as she was blasting Obama on Fox News in his second term over not being more aggressive in the middle east.
If having a massive bigot in charge of the country is a tradeoff you'd be willing to make in exchange for getting more government benefits, that's horrific.
Just like it was Ukrainian flase flag that shot down the passenger airliner, right?
The most damning thing besides the sat imagery showing the smoke of artillery fire, Assad's use of barrel bombs and starvation as weapons of war, is that Russian drones targeted hospitals treating gas victims and coordinated airstrikes for Assad and Russian aircraft of facilities treating victims of the gas attack.
People who carry water for Assad are vile people and shouldn't have a seat at the political table.
The most damning thing besides the sat imagery showing the smoke of artillery fire, Assad's use of barrel bombs and starvation as weapons of war, is that Russian drones targeted hospitals treating gas victims and coordinated airstrikes for Assad and Russian aircraft of facilities treating victims of the gas attack.
People who carry water for Assad are vile people and shouldn't have a seat at the political table.
Biden is an imperialist. Obama was an imperialist. Obama's military interventionism resulted in fucking slave markets popping up in Syria. Sorry that I actually give a damn about people in other countries, lib.
Neither of them should be president, but Biden is probably the worst option (and doesn't exactly have the cleanest record himself when it comes to racial and gender politics either) and you are also bending over backwards to apologize and deny liberal imperialism.
It's no wonder that libertarians love her.
Frankly she'd almost be worse than Trump since she isn't a blathering idiot yet is still a Russian puppet.
Frankly she'd almost be worse than Trump since she isn't a blathering idiot yet is still a Russian puppet.
i don't think tulsi has a base aside from extremely online dirtbag leftist weirdos so i think we're safe
She is. Sorry that reality doesn't align with the bullshit image she puts out that some buy into because she supported Bernie in 2016.
Just like when she flipped on LGBT issues when she sought a more prominent House position, she flipflopped on the Iran deal in 2017.
And there it is. Supporting an Assad propagandist to own the libs.
"Why won't you liberals give Tulsi and peace a chance?" /completely disingenuous Russia apologists across the web
"She should never be president" = supporting her. Who would've guessed.
If she were to get the nomination it'd be time to move to Canada.
How long before we find out she has a curious campaign finance stream from abroad? She's running as a spoiler to ravage the mess of candidates as was obvious from her debate performance which didn't even make the pretense of selling herself - just attacking others.
Maybe she really is just that person - I've never encountered anyone who supports her who wasn't also a troll or Hillary conspiracist.
Is anyone here a real fan who can explain her appeal?
Maybe she really is just that person - I've never encountered anyone who supports her who wasn't also a troll or Hillary conspiracist.
Is anyone here a real fan who can explain her appeal?
Well, she's got some sketchy campaign finance practices for sure-
The problem is that she's going to be used to attack whoever the nominee is from the "left", just like chucklefucks like Michael Tracey did before they couldn't keep up the act anymore and started writing for places like The Federalist, pied-pipering as many as they could with them.
That's the scary thing. She is just as much of a puppet of Russia as Trump yet is better at hiding her Putin ties.
Always found her appearances on Intercepted to be very strange. At least she doesn't seem to stand much of a chance in 2020.
Baseless Conspiracy time: one of her largest recent individual donors is Blue Owl LLC - itself a bizarrely enigmatic and mysterious tech startup :
Insurance experts have no clue what it's actually doing but the company itself claims to be focused on Data Science, Mobile Engineering and this one stood out like a sore thumb - "behavior design"
Again I got nothing but it sounds a lot like Trump's unusually competent Data mining associates at Cambridge Analytica. Blue Owl is connected to State Farm but is a separate business that seems to be oddly opaque.
Edit. Bizarre unrelated State Farm detail:
Insurance experts have no clue what it's actually doing but the company itself claims to be focused on Data Science, Mobile Engineering and this one stood out like a sore thumb - "behavior design"
Again I got nothing but it sounds a lot like Trump's unusually competent Data mining associates at Cambridge Analytica. Blue Owl is connected to State Farm but is a separate business that seems to be oddly opaque.
Edit. Bizarre unrelated State Farm detail:
Last edited:
As far as I can tell what has actually happened here is after the last debate Anderson Cooper asked her about Assad and she clearly didn't have a prepared answer ready and when he pressed her all she had was "My Brothers and Sisters in the military" and frankly it made her look dumb.
Now she is doubling down as if she has some overarching agenda and it's making her look dumber.
Last edited:
Shes a homophobic dictator loving possible Russian shill. The fact that weird Mariananne Williamson is sucking up spotlight has allowed her to actually look like a serious candidate.