Why is it so fucking hard to find evidence of Assad's warcrimes? This shit is infuriating. I posted on /r/syriancivilwar and I got fucking nothing.
>hey OP, here's a pic of a dead guy
>what do I do with this? How did he die? What's the context? Do you have evidence that he was innocent and that a soldier killed him?
>are you a fucking shill? I just showed you a pic of a dead guy. What more do you want? btw, here's a report from a committee that the US government donated millions to.
>this committee relies on eyewitness testimony
>what the fuck kind of CIA shill are you? this is obviously definite proof of warcrimes. Btw, here's a video of inside Assad's super evil torture rape chamber. We only have this video because it fell into opposition control.
>isn't the opposition ISIS?
>wow, fucking shill, get the fuck out
Like, aren't there photos? Testimony from former soldiers? Videos? We have photos of torture from fucking abu ghraib, where's the shit from Syria? How can I believe this shit when there's not a single fucking piece of photo evidence from a half-decade long war?
>>71156783
Assad looks like my dad plus elf ears minus a chin
That's fucking true.
I like to see both sides Of a story, but with Assad all I get is evidence in favor of Him.
one bumperino
>>71156783
It's all a MSM meme, he's not done much wrong and the vast majority of Syrian citizens support him.
Barrel bombs
>>71156783
He is bad.
Hillary Clinton says so.
So he is bad.
Very very bad.
>>71156783
Because it just doesn't exist.
The red line of "Chemical weapons" wasn't the Syrian Army, but the 'moderate rebels'.
The only constantly quoted source of 'evidence' is the "Syrian Human Rights Observatory" which is run by a single guy and a couple volunteers. In London. Their evidence is eyewitness reports that they get calls about.
There just literally aren't journalists out there - they're too afraid, not of Assad, but of ISIS!
>>71156783
His military extracts confessions from prisoners by threatening to cut off they dicks
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/04/18/bashar-al-assads-war-crimes-exposed
In respect to Ghouta, I don't really see any evidence supporting Assad's side. Mind you, the anti-Assad evidence is pretty much heresay, but it does seem to make more sense.
Yes, you've figured it out. Everything is propaganda unless it's sourced and narrated directly from not-eyewitnesses who must be loyal to the Assad regime or were formally loyal but who have since defected (but not to the opposition, which is comprised entirely of ISIS), who can't be cited by the Western governments or news sources and whose claims can only be substantiated by full half hour long 4K video clips of regime soldiers loudly announcing their full names and ranks and brandishing government-issued IDs and narrating the surrounding context and reasoning for the actions before overtly committing clearly established warcrimes to be video taped for your consumption and acknowledgment on the other side of the Earth.
>>71158775
Cute post, but we have photographic or videographic footage of nearly every warcrime in the 20th century. And during the Bahrain protests -- there's no shortage of videos showing the police and the army shooting protesters. Yet it is alleged that Assad's soldiers shot at protesters during a ten-thousand man protest, and there's not a single video of it. The only evidence is testimony, mainly from unnamed individuals and always from anti-Assad people.
The fact is that when you rely on "eyewitness" testimony from individuals who are heavily invested in their narrative, you are now acting in good faith. You are believing blindly what someone is telling you. If you are relying on this information to inform your view, you are no different from someone in Russia who is blindly following what Putin says about Assad.
So yeah, when you're not a complete retard, and you understand the Allies have been fabricating conflict origins since the sinking of the Lusitania and in every conflict since then, the need for photographic and videographic evidence is apparent.
The UN report states there was use of chimical weapons, but they couldn't have a definite proof of who used it.
A few weeks ago some colonel US-backed moderate rebel colonel used chimical weapons on kurds
>>71156783
He is the first man to survive 'them' because he refused to be 'their' servant.
Him winning the war is the most important thing that will happen in the future history, regarding this period that we live in.
More important than the fall of Berlin wall.
