• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Patrick Buchanan says chemical attack false flag.

Montecresto

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 9, 2013
Messages
24,561
Reaction score
5,507
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
This is the most logical response to the Syrian chemical attack.


During an interview with Newsmax Thursday, three-time presidential adviser Pat Buchanan joined the growing number of mainstream voices now specifically labeling the recent chemical attacks in Syria as a false flag.

“…First, this thing reeks of a false flag operation,” said Buchanan. “I would not understand or comprehend that Bashar al-Assad, no matter how bad a man he may be, would be so stupid as to order a chemical weapons attack on civilians in his own country when the immediate consequence of which might be that he would be at war with the United States. So this reeks of a false flag operation.”

Of course it does. Only apologists for the administration, partisans and warmongers believe otherwise.


Read more: Pat Buchanan: Chemical Attack 'Reeks Of False Flag Operation'
 
I haven't heard a good explanation as to why Assad would use chemical weapons at this point either. Killing a bunch of civilians and earning the wrath of Almighty Obama seems foolish.
 
This is the most logical response to the Syrian chemical attack.


During an interview with Newsmax Thursday, three-time presidential adviser Pat Buchanan joined the growing number of mainstream voices now specifically labeling the recent chemical attacks in Syria as a false flag.

“…First, this thing reeks of a false flag operation,” said Buchanan. “I would not understand or comprehend that Bashar al-Assad, no matter how bad a man he may be, would be so stupid as to order a chemical weapons attack on civilians in his own country when the immediate consequence of which might be that he would be at war with the United States. So this reeks of a false flag operation.”

Of course it does. Only apologists for the administration, partisans and warmongers believe otherwise.


Read more: Pat Buchanan: Chemical Attack 'Reeks Of False Flag Operation'

The more I read, the more I feel he's correct. And God help us if he is, and our government attacks Syria as they currently plan.
 
Of course, one has to wonder who controls Obama. He doesn't come up with bad ideas all by himself. Who's stooge is he?
 
Last edited:
I haven't heard a good explanation as to why Assad would use chemical weapons at this point either. Killing a bunch of civilians and earning the wrath of Almighty Obama seems foolish.


Right. But seeing clearly what the rebels would stand to gain if Assad was accused of it by the US, is an elephant in the room.
 
The more I read, the more I feel he's correct. And God help us if he is, and our government attacks Syria as they currently plan.

Dittos.
 
This reminds me of the movie War Games. The only way to win is not to play.
 
I agree with him.
 
Of course, one has to wonder who controls Obama. He doesn't come up with bad ideas all by himself. Who's stooge is he?

He's the stooge for the billionaires who own the weapons industry. The same billionaires that we all feel so sorry for because of their terrible tax burden.
 
He's the stooge for the billionaires who own the weapons industry. The same billionaires that we all feel so sorry for because of their terrible tax burden.

That's too easy. I think he's getting specific directions from someone who hates the U.S.
 
And the paranoid style of politics hits the right-wing now. Now they can join the truthers in messianic delusions.
 
Given Buchanan's complicity with the Nixon administration, his apparent inability in avoiding praise for Nazi Germany and former Nazis, and his not-so-cryptic use of anti-Semitic dog whistling, Buchanan has about as much credibility as Assad and the rebels.

Still even a blind squirrel finds an acorn sometimes.

But the last person I would quote for a foreign policy position is Buchanan. He's got some weird pan-Aryan agenda or something. Though to be fair I guess Israel would prefer Assad to the rebels on this one. I guess politics does make strange bedfellows.
 
He found the acorn.
 
That's too easy. I think he's getting specific directions from someone who hates the U.S.

I think my theory makes a lot more sense than yours does. Involving the US in Syria is very profitable to the weapons makers and as a way of "harming" the US, it's pretty weak.
 
Buchanan and Sunununununununu are well-known Israeli-haters.
Given Buchanan's complicity with the Nixon administration, his apparent inability in avoiding praise for Nazi Germany and former Nazis, and his not-so-cryptic use of anti-Semitic dog whistling, Buchanan has about as much credibility as Assad and the rebels.

Still even a blind squirrel finds an acorn sometimes.

But the last person I would quote for a foreign policy position is Buchanan. He's got some weird pan-Aryan agenda or something. Though to be fair I guess Israel would prefer Assad to the rebels on this one. I guess politics does make strange bedfellows.
 
Buchanan and Sunununununununu are well-known Israeli-haters.

Just because Buchanan opposes the way the west allows Israel to get away with murder doesn't mean he hates Israel. He's critical of Israeli policies and western complacency. But what does any of that have to do with his very logical point on the Syrian chemical attacks.
 
He found the acorn.

Well, well put perhaps. You may be right that he may be right, which would be about the first time that happened.

Though in fairness, didn't Buchanan oppose the Iraqi vanity war? I think he might have.
 
Just because Buchanan opposes the way the west allows Israel to get away with murder doesn't mean he hates Israel. He's critical of Israeli policies and western complacency. But what does any of that have to do with his very logical point on the Syrian chemical attacks.

There's more to it than that, Montecresto. I agree people should be able to criticize Israel's policies without being condemned as Nazis. But there's more to Buchanan than that. He dog whistles a lot to anti-Semitism, ranting about bankers with suspiciously Jewish names for instance. His tendency to praise Nazi German with faint damnation is odious. His defense of Nazi war criminals was ugly.

So honestly, be careful about having Buchanan in your camp.
 
Well, well put perhaps. You may be right that he may be right, which would be about the first time that happened.

Though in fairness, didn't Buchanan oppose the Iraqi vanity war? I think he might have.

I think he did. Also, he joins a growing list of prominent people, myself included, that see it as obvious.
 
Buchanan's history speaks for itself. So does Rumsfeld's. Having to listen to these two klowns on MSM renews the memory of mistakes over the last 30 years that House Repubs are all of a sudden in a rush to not repeat so we don't remember.
Just because Buchanan opposes the way the west allows Israel to get away with murder doesn't mean he hates Israel. He's critical of Israeli policies and western complacency. But what does any of that have to do with his very logical point on the Syrian chemical attacks.
 
There's more to it than that, Montecresto. I agree people should be able to criticize Israel's policies without being condemned as Nazis. But there's more to Buchanan than that. He dog whistles a lot to anti-Semitism, ranting about bankers with suspiciously Jewish names for instance. His tendency to praise Nazi German with faint damnation is odious. His defense of Nazi war criminals was ugly.

So honestly, be careful about having Buchanan in your camp.

Buchanan isn't in my camp. And anything truly racist or hateful, I wouldn't agree with him on.
 
I'll move your post back to the 1930's when Repubs were appeasing Germany led by Prescott Bush. I just heard Rumsfeld blame Powell for the presentation to the UN. It's never-ending with these LIARs.
There's more to it than that, Montecresto. I agree people should be able to criticize Israel's policies without being condemned as Nazis. But there's more to Buchanan than that. He dog whistles a lot to anti-Semitism, ranting about bankers with suspiciously Jewish names for instance. His tendency to praise Nazi German with faint damnation is odious. His defense of Nazi war criminals was ugly.

So honestly, be careful about having Buchanan in your camp.
 
Buchanan's history speaks for itself. So does Rumsfeld's. Having to listen to these two klowns on MSM renews the memory of mistakes over the last 30 years that House Repubs are all of a sudden in a rush to not repeat so we don't remember.

Ok. I'm not going to disagree with you about that because I don't want this thread to become about Buchanan. His observation is shared. One thing nobody can do is posit a logical explanation for why Assad would make the mistake of using chemical weapons on his civilians, who largely support him. And as Buchanan correctly points out, he would be inviting a US attack that the US would love to give him. Furthermore it would undermine China and Russia's credibility in supporting him. IT MAKES NO SENSE. The rebels have EVERYTHING to gain by Assad getting blamed! So.................
 
“…First, this thing reeks of a false flag operation,” said Buchanan. “I would not understand or comprehend that Bashar al-Assad, no matter how bad a man he may be, would be so stupid as to order a chemical weapons attack on civilians in his own country when the immediate consequence of which might be that he would be at war with the United States. So this reeks of a false flag operation.”

Of course it does. Only apologists for the administration, partisans and warmongers believe otherwise.

So...Let me try to understand the logic here: Assad would never gas his opponents because that would mean confrontation with Washington and Paris. He was framed. (Unless, of course, he thinks that's what we would think).

But this is all sheer nonsense.

Comrade Assad is fighting for his life, in a brutal civil war. He is the last of the three Baathist dictators standing. The other two - Saddam and Qaddafi - died in a manner that leaves very little room for wishful thinking - or for any ten-steps-ahead strategy games. This is not a party of chess. This is about survival: there will be no legal rigmarole, like with Mubarak, or Pinochet, or even Todor bleeping Zhivkov - not all crimes are created equal, and Bashar knows exactly where his Daddy's regime sits, in the spectrum of the 20th century tyrannies.

Put yourself into the shoes of the thug: What do you have to lose? You absolutely have to inflict the maximum damage possible onto your opponents, NOW. By any means available.

What happens later - who knows? Did the world unite to overthrow Saddam after he - undeniably and openly - gassed the Kurds? Eh, not exactly.

Will your milk brothers, mighty Comrades Pu and Xi save the day? Maybe. Maybe not.

It is a gamble, sure. But in a knife fight, you don't theorize about what may happen half an hour from now. You block the other guy's moves, as effectively as you can.
 
Back
Top Bottom