Syria Again

Depp

Zebra3 wrote: »

Yeah, I've no doubt that Putin is paying boards.ie posters. :rolleyes:

he pays well! give him a bell on twitter sure!

no too sure on this but im getting awful ''saddam definitely has wmds'' vibe off this whole thing. Lot of people up in arms over this and I've yet to see any concrete evidence outside of testimonies here and there. What are syria's oil reserves like does anyone know?

TommyKnocker

Gatling wrote: »

Benjamin Netanyahu has called on the international community to "fully and finally remove these horrible weapons from Syria."

Makes you wonder if isreal might take the lead on removing Assads chemical weapons ,Putin proved useless after claiming assad gave up his chemical weapons ,

Is this the same Nut&Yahoo who used white phosphorus munitions on civilians in Gaza?

Pot & kettle come to mind.

Christy42

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

Serious question. Do you think it's normal for so called professional rescue workers to be obsessed with photographing children?
What professional rescuers would photograph children when they are at their most vulnerable? Real professionals like the Red Cross or Crescent would NEVER photograph the people they are trying to rescue- especially children. They are trained to treat victims with dignity and not take pictures of them!
It's sordid. It stinks!

Is it a serious question? When was the last disaster people were not taking photos at?

Taking pictures gets their message out to the world and can help spread news of the plight far better than a few lines about the numbers dead can.

Edit: great article from the people themselves.
https://www.redcross.fi/news/20141028/relief-work-help-camera

A Little Pony

People know about the plight but day to day no one gives a sh*t. I don't see huge marches about Syria all over Europe and major cities like London, like the protest against Iraq war or any time someone draws a Muhammad cartoon. Most people just don't care.

Jimmy Garlic

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

Serious question. Do you think it's normal for so called professional rescue workers to be obsessed with photographing children?
What professional rescuers would photograph children when they are at their most vulnerable? Real professionals like the Red Cross or Crescent would NEVER photograph the people they are trying to rescue- especially children. They are trained to treat victims with dignity and not take pictures of them!
It's sordid. It stinks!

Staged for the cameras. The white helmets have been caught 'red handed staging their ''rescues'' on several occasions. The BBC and friends cite them as a reliable source.

It is irrefutable that these characters have been staging scenes to be peddled on western media. It can't be debunked.

A reliable source? Wag the dog more like.

Boom_Bap

Was that video not their mannequin challenge that they done?

Shurimgreat

Gatling wrote: »

It's not there both useless ,the assad regime has literally been bled dry he's no real army anymore ,he's totally reliant on Iranians and hizbollah to fight on the ground and both have suffered​ heavy casualties defending land that's isn't theirs and have no loyalty to ,
Assad is keeping the majority of his forces in Damascus defending him ,
And Putin won't commit to sending 250,000 -300,000 of his own forces either to stabilize and secure land

Agreed. And if he's using chemical weapons it's probably a sign he's running low on conventional weapons. Chemical weapons are usually a weapon of last resort, but they are banned under international law. To actually win the war, Assad would need to use a lot of weapons up to and including chemical weapons. But so far he has used them with complete impunity, largely thanks to the Russian veto and he will use them again in future.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

Serious question. Do you think it's normal for so called professional rescue workers to be obsessed with photographing children?
What professional rescuers would photograph children when they are at their most vulnerable? Real professionals like the Red Cross or Crescent would NEVER photograph the people they are trying to rescue- especially children. They are trained to treat victims with dignity and not take pictures of them!
It's sordid. It stinks!

I don't think it's abnormal. "Obsessed" makes your statement biased. Who says they are obsessed?

Using images/video to tell a story is far far superior to text alone. I imagine their aim is to reach out to those with a lack of understanding and no better way to do that than with children.

It's sickening to say that these people are terrorists and to dismiss the fantastic work they have done over the years.

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

Staged for the cameras. The white helmets have been caught 'red handed staging their ''rescues'' on several occasions. The BBC and friends cite them as a reliable source.

It is irrefutable that these characters have been staging scenes to be peddled on western media. It can't be debunked.

A reliable source? Wag the dog more like.

Can you post any links to those several occasions or should I point you in the direction of the CT forum?

Shurimgreat

A Little Pony wrote: »

People know about the plight but day to day no one gives a sh*t. I don't see huge marches about Syria all over Europe and major cities like London, like the protest against Iraq war or any time someone draws a Muhammad cartoon. Most people just don't care.

That is true, most don't sadly. Most people care more about X Factor, Celebrity Big Brother or Geordie Shore, which is probably a damning indictment of modern society. If they did protest, they would be shouted down by the usual loony lefties and rent a protest mob. So most people couldn't be bothered protesting.

Gatling

Ashton Plain Pretzel wrote: »

I don't think it's abnormal. "Obsessed" makes your statement biased. Who says they are obsessed?

Using images/video to tell a story is far far superior to text alone. I imagine their aim is to reach out to those with a lack of understanding and no better way to do that than with children.

It's sickening to say that these people are terrorists and to dismiss the fantastic work they have done over the years.



Can you post any links to those several occasions or should I point you in the direction of the CT forum?

Elmer who's obsessed with the white helmets next he will be saying the white hats stole bombers from asasd to bomb civilians to make him look bad.

Actually a quick Google search will show thousands of photos of the red Cross and red cresent workers with kids ,

RobertKK

Given Syria is a proxy war.
It is impossible to know the truth, it suits Assad's enemies for Sarin gas to have been used.

It suited the US to go to war with Iraq to remove WMD.
The truth can appear clear, but in the case of Syria, one cannot know the truth. The best way to remove Assad is to have him accused of using chemical weapons.
He may have, but to believe it 100% is very naive.

Gatling

RobertKK wrote: »

The truth can appear clear, but in the case of Syria, one cannot know the truth. The best way to remove Assad is to have him accused of using chemical weapons.
He may have, but to believe it 100% is very naive.

Should we automatically dismiss chemical attack's against civilians based off let's not believe a very desperate tyrant won't use chemical weapons against his own population ,
How many more chemical attack's before it's a. Actual issue

Yourself isit

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Certain posters here must be in the pocket of Putin. Whenever Russia does something, it was for a good reason, they weren't responsible or it was for the best. Does make you wonder about the Russian cyber army.

Isn't the conspiracy forum that way ->

Or is it that way <-

Yourself isit

Gatling wrote: »

Should we automatically dismiss chemical attack's against civilians based off let's not believe a very desperate tyrant won't use chemical weapons against his own population ,
How many more chemical attack's before it's a. Actual issue

Here's the question.

The day after the US said they weren't supporting the removal of Assad. That regime change wasn't an option, this happens.

Why would assad do this?

Now the US has totally changed its tune.

Zebra3

Gatling wrote: »

Should we automatically dismiss chemical attack's against civilians based off let's not believe a very desperate tyrant won't use chemical weapons against his own population ,
How many more chemical attack's before it's a. Actual issue

Maybe before people jump up and down about the alleged chemical attack, we can have an investigation in to the use of depleted uranium by the West in Iraq?

Oh no, sorry, we only get upset about stuff that BBC and western politicians try to moralise over. :rolleyes:

Gatling

Yourself isit wrote: »

Here's the question.

The day after the US said they weren't supporting the removal of Assad. That regime change wasn't an option,

Why would assad do this?

Now the US has totally changed its tune.

No the US hasn't changed it's tune Trump blamed it on Obama ,
Trump been Putins bitch won't do anything he's not getting involved as he's utterly clueless on the complex middle East

Christy42

RobertKK wrote: »

Given Syria is a proxy war.
It is impossible to know the truth, it suits Assad's enemies for Sarin gas to have been used.

It suited the US to go to war with Iraq to remove WMD.
The truth can appear clear, but in the case of Syria, one cannot know the truth. The best way to remove Assad is to have him accused of using chemical weapons.
He may have, but to believe it 100% is very naive.

Well no one, not even Assad or the Russians claim it was a false flag so that scenario is exceptionally unlikely. The defense is that rebels were developing sarin gas and their production got hit as government forces sid use air forces in the area.

Realistically that veto is not going anywhere in the UN so I really don't see a massive downside to Assad using this weaponry. It can terrify his opponents into submission, especially if they think their families are at risk. Realistically the best way to have Assad removed is to have him and his inner circle taken out in a "rebel strike".

This won't do much to Assad as long as Russia can deny it was him in some fashion. Given both sides have used chemical weapons before without serious issue I see no benefit to the rebels from this incident.

Gatling

Zebra3 wrote: »

Maybe before people jump up and down about the alleged chemical attack, we can have an investigation in to the use of depleted uranium by the West in Iraq?

Oh no, sorry, we only get upset about stuff that BBC and western politicians try to moralise over. :rolleyes:

Let's don't see why not .

But hey nice deflection shame the Syrians must have pissed off a lot of boardies with some of posts of denial where anything involving assad regime

Yourself isit

Gatling wrote: »

No the US hasn't changed it's tune Trump blamed it on Obama ,
Trump been Putins bitch won't do anything he's not getting involved as he's utterly clueless on the complex middle East

The American ambassador has said the US is going to do something.

Hopefully trump doesnt go to war over this moronic fabrication - a new WMD, or bayoneted babies.

But it's possible. The neo conservatives want Russian blood.

Gatling

Yourself isit wrote: »

The American ambassador has said the US is going to do something.

Funny the president several attacks back said a line had been drawn and broken ,

What happened, come on tell us what happened then and what's going to happen now ,

Conall Cernach

If it is Assad forces that are using chemical weapons they seem to be pretty **** at it. When Saddam used gas against the Kurds he managed to kill thousands of people. Surely conventional weapons would cause as many if not more casualties without the risk of universal condemnation as are being killed by these gas attacks.

Depp

Gatling wrote: »

Funny the president several attacks back said a line had been drawn and broken ,

What happened, come on tell us what happened then and what's going to happen now ,

why is it trumps problem to fix? the us or the uk hop in to topple assad we have iraq/saddam all over again, same wmd lies, same needless lives lost, same needless taxpayer money spent policing the world, same vacuum left when they eventually do pull out and the only people who'll benefit are bae systems and lockheed martin.

Yourself isit

Gatling wrote: »

Funny the president several attacks back said a line had been drawn and broken ,

What happened, come on tell us what happened then and what's going to happen now ,

What president said what?

As to what happens, what response to this false flag, is hopefully nothing.

Gatling

Depp wrote: »

bae systems and lockheed martin.

Not Trump but the civilised world should step in and put an end to this ,
Syria is dead as we know it ,its likely going to separate into individual Sovereign states the way it was and the end of Ww2 ,

Assad and iran prefer to buy russian nothing for American or uk arms companies to cheer about

archer22

conorhal wrote: »

Did I say it was 'lies', I'm just saying it's a very convenient truth with an agenda behind it. Those rattling sabres aren't the lest bit interested in what any side does, unless it provides an opportunity to challence Putin. Putin is a scumbag BTW but the Western powers decrying the use of chemical weapons could at least be honest enough to admit their motive to destabilize Syria is to lessen Russian influence in the region.

American and western European involvement there probably has more to do with kow towing to Israel and Saudi Arabia.
For Israel it fits its "Yinon Plan" and also its desire to weaken its arch enemy the Lebanese military force Hezbollah.
For Saudi Arabia destroying or weakening its Shia Islam rival Iran.

Yourself isit

Conall Cernach wrote: »

If it is Assad forces that are using chemical weapons they seem to be pretty **** at it. When Saddam used gas against the Kurds he managed to kill thousands of people. Surely conventional weapons would cause as many if not more casualties without the risk of universal condemnation as are being killed by these gas attacks.

Conventional weapons don't cause the same outrage. So of course you can see why assad used chemical weapons. He likes to get the west involved in attacking him because he wants to lose control and be killed and realises that he needed to up the ante.

Depp

Gatling wrote: »

Not Trump but the civilised world should step in and put an end to this ,
Syria is dead as we know it ,its likely going to separate into individual Sovereign states the way it was and the end of Ww2 ,

Assad and iran prefer to buy russian nothing for American or uk arms companies to cheer about

don't agree with this, boots on the ground to fight isis is one thing, but assad v rebel groups is not our fight, why should we pay for it? why should we die for it? If its just for human rights then why syria? why not dubai? why not the saudis? why not qatar? why not north korea? its not the job of the ''civilized world'' to right the wrongs of the ''uncivilized world''

archer22

Yourself isit wrote: »

Conventional weapons don't cause the same outrage. So of course you can see why assad used chemical weapons. He likes to get the west involved in attacking him because he wants to lose control and be killed and realises that he needed to up the ante.

Exactly he realised he was going to win...so he decided he needed western intervention to stop him from doing that

Zebra3

Gatling wrote: »

Not Trump but the civilised world should step in and put an end to this ,

Who or what is this "civilised world" you speak of?

And will this same "civilised world" intervene in Yemen where Saudi Arabia is slaughtering peasants with British manufactured cluster bombs with US support?

RobertKK

Gatling wrote: »

Should we automatically dismiss chemical attack's against civilians based off let's not believe a very desperate tyrant won't use chemical weapons against his own population ,
How many more chemical attack's before it's a. Actual issue

Was the Sarin gas attack in the Tokyo subway years ago an attack by the Japanese government on their own people?
Of course it was not, it was a cult that did this, yet in this case we are told it is Assad which lacks reason, but helps the sides who want him removed.
You don't need to be in a government in a country to have access to Sarin.
Assad is still in power, not by being stupid.
The attack would be highly stupid and he would know it would do him no good, so one should look to who benefits from this.

This attack benefits the enemies of Assad, who want him removed, it is convenient for the west to blame Assad, since the west sides with Saudi Arabia who were responsible for 9/11, funded ISIS and who want Assad removed, as he is an ally of Iran.

It is amazing how fast everyone in the media and countries were to blame Assad without the evidence. Just straight out blame and taking the word of people who oppose Assad as gospel.