Chemical weapon used on civilians in Syria + Airstrikes

mulbot

cnocbui wrote: »

You didn't read it so you didn't see it.

Can you point it out please,I've read it twice now

Tigerbaby

Cnocbu
Jordan, ha ha !

oh you mean Israel's near-abroad?

Educate yourself man.

Read Fisk's report on his visit to Douma last week. This is a primary source, not secondary or tertiary or make-uppery. Fisk actually walked through the "chemical-attack" zone.

Learn. Grow.

cnocbui

mulbot wrote: »

Can you point it out please,I've read it twice now

Since 2014, the OPCW Fact-Finding Mission (FFM) has published several reports confirming the use of chemical weapons against civilians in Syria. The UN-OPCW Joint Investigation Mechanism(JIM) on chemical weapons attacks has investigated nine occasions when they have allegedly been used.

In its August and October 2016 reports, the JIM attributed three cases of the use of chlorine to the Damascus regime and one case of the use of yperite to Daesh

Clearly there would be more confirmations were it not for Russia's continual blocking of UNSC motions.

cnocbui

Tigerbaby wrote: »

Cnocbu
Jordan, ha ha !

oh you mean Israel's near-abroad?

Educate yourself man.

Read Fisk's report on his visit to Douma last week. This is a primary source, not secondary or tertiary or make-uppery. Fisk actually walked through the "chemical-attack" zone.

Learn. Grow.

Your pomposity is overbearing. I have read Fisk's account. There is nothing primary about it. He talked to a regime supporting doctor who did not witness the events in the hospital/clinic, as he was at home, and he didn't track down and talk to any of the White Helmets to get their accounts. A worthless one-sided report that conveyed nothing of importance - and I usually admire Fisk.

mulbot

cnocbui wrote: »

Clearly there would be more confirmations were it not for Russia's continual blocking of UNSC motions.

"the FFM cannot confidently determine whether or not a specific chemical was used as a weapon in the investigated
incident. From the results of the analyses
of the samples, the FF
M is of the opinion
that none of the chemicals identified are
likely to be the cause of death of the
casualties in the reported incident."

From the report 12th-19th oct 2016

cnocbui

Beirut: A Syrian filmmaker says Russian state media outlets have used images from the set of his movie to claim that video footage from an April 7 suspected poison gas attack in Syria was staged.

Humam Husari describes it as a "desperate and cheap attempt by Russian TV to deny the obvious attack on Douma."
Russian filmmarker Humam Husari.

The April 22 reports by Russia's Rossiya-1 and Channel One appear to back up the Russian and Syrian government's narrative that there was no chemical weapons attack in Douma, and that videos purporting to show victims of the attack were faked.

But Husari says that in one segment, the reports use behind-the-scenes images from the set of his short film called Chemical, as it was being filmed in the eastern Ghouta region in 2016.

https://www.smh.com.au/world/middle-east/filmmaker-says-russia-used-his-images-to-back-fake-chemical-attack-20180426-p4zbug.html

Why am I not surprised?

mcmoustache

cnocbui wrote: »

https://www.smh.com.au/world/middle-east/filmmaker-says-russia-used-his-images-to-back-fake-chemical-attack-20180426-p4zbug.html

Why am I not surprised?

Probably because the Russians aren't even trying to be convincing. This is a country that uses video game footage, easily debunked photoshops and old videos as "proofs" for their lies. They aren't trying to convince diplomats or world leaders. They're providing "confirmation" to be swallowed and repeated by their own willing participants and their fans in the West.

This is the craziest part about all this - the lies are terrible lies but people still fall for them over and over again, as if this time it'll be different.

Gatling

So russia used scenes from a fake chemical attack in a movie to claim a real chemical attack was fake and posters on here used the same Images to prove that the chemical attack was fake .

Comical but absolutely true .

Just shows some people will believe any old nonsense

Franz Von Peppercorn

Interesting post from Patrick Cockburn regarding previous misinformation by the imperialists, during gulf war I. And how journalists were treated and how the truth came out eventually, to no fanfare.

https://m.independent.ie/opinion/comment/be-sceptical-of-those-who-claim-to-know-exactly-what-is-happening-on-the-ground-in-syrian-war-36830728.html

The CNN correspondent Peter Arnett, who was on the trip, had reported that "whatever else it did, it [the plant] produced infant formula". He saw a lot of powdered milk and, contrary to the Pentagon claim that the place was guarded like a fortress, we could only see one guard at the gate. Arnett did not deny the US government version that the place was a BW plant, but he did not confirm it either. He simply reported that "it looked innocent enough from what we could see".

Even such mild dissent from the official US version of the bombing turned out to be unacceptable, producing an explosion of rage in Washington. Colin Powell, the US chief of staff, expressed certainty that the Abu Ghraib plant had manufactured BW. The US air force claimed that it had multiple sources of information proving the same thing.

Later...

The story of the Abu Ghraib baby milk factory is worth retelling because it underlines - in the wake of the US, British and French air strikes on alleged Syrian BW sites on 14 April - the need for permanent scepticism towards claims by governments that they know what is happening on the ground in Syria or anywhere else.

But government duplicity is scarcely new and denunciations of it may obscure an even greater danger. Look again at the attack on Peter Arnett's story by the White House spokesman Marlin Fitzwater who was wrong - and Arnett was right - in saying that it contained "a disclosure that is erroneous, that is false". But he adds correctly that it was a disclosure "that hurts our government and plays into the hands of Saddam Hussein".

So it was in a minor way and this brings us to a toxic attitude towards those who question the official version of events increasingly common in Britain and the US. It is overwhelming freedom of speech in Hungary and Poland and has already triumphed in Turkey and Egypt. In all cases, opinions diverging from those of the powers-that-be are branded as disloyal and unpatriotic and "false facts" are being spread by "useful idiots", to use two ghastly cliches much in use

Gatling

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

"false facts" are being spread by "useful idiots",

That's the consensus from the majority of the posters on here .

Misinformation and lies being spread by useful idiots,

RebelButtMunch

Gatling wrote: »

So russia used scenes from a fake chemical attack in a movie to claim a real chemical attack was fake and posters on here used the same Images to prove that the chemical attack was fake .

Comical but absolutely true .

Just shows some people will believe any old nonsense

Madness Ted.

Did you watch that Adam Curtis Documentary? It's pretty eye opening.

Dr Brown

Its an obvious false flag.

nacho libre

Aegir wrote: »

no idea, maybe.

What does this have to do with the discussion? Has Philip May done well out of BAE shares? He is a small cog in a huge wheel that owns a massive 8% of BAE shares.

maybe they should invest in a company making tin foil hats?

Good attempt to downplay the clear conflict of interest- and throwing in tin foil hats guff to deride it too. Nothing to see here:) He is more than a small cog in a wheel. You knew that before you posted, though. I have a feeling if we were discussing a leader you were ideologically opposed to, you'd be more inclined to acknowledge it. Also it seems a bit rich of Theresa May expressing outrage over indisriminate killings in Syria, while staying silent over indisciminate killings in another country because the perpetrator is an ally. It would suggest her moral indignation over what is happening in Syria is nothing but a pretence.

Gatling

Dr Brown wrote: »

Its an obvious false flag.

No it's not it's russia trying to stop the OPCW investigation .
With this utter ****e they tried pulling yesterday

Dr Brown

Gatling wrote: »

No it's not it's russia trying to stop the OPCW investigation .
With this utter ****e they tried pulling yesterday

Where is the evidence Russia are trying to stop the investigation ?

WinnyThePoo

Dr Brown wrote: »

Where is the evidence Russia are trying to stop the investigation ?

yawn.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Gatling wrote: »

That's the consensus from the majority of the posters on here .

Misinformation and lies being spread by useful idiots,

It’s not a concensus of the majority of posters. It’s a concensus of the majority of posts by a minority of posters.

As I said in the feedback thread we should limit posts per day, or even per topic. The neoconservatives seem to have all day to post and in fact are largely responsible for turning this thread into an echo chamber. The rest of us have lives.

It looks to me like the narrative is breaking down - anybody who has gone to Syria has reported confusion from witnesses about the supposed attack which has merely caused western propagandists to up the attacks on the journalists/reporters who actually went to Syria.

Gatling

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

As I said in the feedback thread we should limit posts per day, or even per topic. The neoconservatives seem to have all day to post and in fact are largely responsible for turning this thread into an echo chamber.

Lol welcome to democracy and freedom .

It's not Moscow and it never will be .


Have to say made me laugh thought


But yes it's concensus of the majority of the posters on here as I already stated

Franz Von Peppercorn

Gatling wrote: »

Lol welcome to democracy and freedom .

It's not Moscow and it never will be .


Have to say made me laugh thought


But yes it's concensus of the majority of the posters on here as I already stated

It’s a concensus of a minority of people who ever posted. However you (and most of your colleagues) have all day to post and most people back off.

As for democracy - the attempts to smear Fisk etc. as Russian stoodges are exactly the kind of rhetoric authoritarian states use. The attempt here to equate all posters with Moscow is sheer modern McCarthyism. The desire to assume your side is always correct is jingoism.

Talking of Jingo:

The "Dogs of War" are loose and the rugged Russian Bear,
All bent on blood and robbery has crawled out of his lair...
It seems a thrashing now and then, will never help to tame...
That brute, and so he's out upon the "same old game"...
The Lion did his best... to find him some excuse...
To crawl back to his den again. All efforts were no use...
He hunger'd for his victim. He's pleased when blood is shed...
But let us hope his crimes may all recoil on his own head...
Chorus:
We don't want to fight but by jingo if we do...
We've got the ships, we've got the men, and got the money too!
We've fought the Bear before... and while we're Britons true,
The Russians shall not have Constantinople

Plus ca change... except the name of the city.

WinnyThePoo

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

It’s a concensus of a minority of people who ever posted. However you (and most of your colleagues) have all day to post and most people back off.

As for democracy - the attempts to smear Fisk etc. as Russian stoodges are exactly the kind of rhetoric authoritarian states use. The attempt here to equate all posters with Moscow is sheer modern McCarthyism. The desire to assume your side is always correct is jingoism.

Talking of Jingo:

The "Dogs of War" are loose and the rugged Russian Bear,
All bent on blood and robbery has crawled out of his lair...
It seems a thrashing now and then, will never help to tame...
That brute, and so he's out upon the "same old game"...
The Lion did his best... to find him some excuse...
To crawl back to his den again. All efforts were no use...
He hunger'd for his victim. He's pleased when blood is shed...
But let us hope his crimes may all recoil on his own head...
Chorus:
We don't want to fight but by jingo if we do...
We've got the ships, we've got the men, and got the money too!
We've fought the Bear before... and while we're Britons true,
The Russians shall not have Constantinople

Plus ca change... except the name of the city.

Bigger yawn.

Dr Brown

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

yawn.

So Russia are allegedly trying to stop an investigation that they called for in the first place ?

Gatling

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

ItThe attempt here to equate all posters with Moscow is sheer modern McCarthyism. The desire to assume your side is always correct is

Well unfortunately for you censorship and control of what and where people is not going to happen ever ,

Welcome to Ireland and the European union

And I don't assume I'm always correct when it comes to reining on ****e posted on here and elsewhere I know I'm right

WinnyThePoo

Dr Brown wrote: »

So Russia are allegedly trying to stop an investigation that they called for in the first place ?

Your not following this at all. Are you?

cnocbui

Dr Brown wrote: »

So Russia are allegedly trying to stop an investigation that they called for in the first place ?

it's what they do.

Franz Von Peppercorn

We don't want to fight but by jingo if we do...
We've got the planes, we've got the missiles, and got the money too!
We've fought the Bear before... and while we're Yanks (and Brits and Frogs) true,
The Russians shall not have East Ghouta.

(Let’s leave it to the head choppers)

HUZZAH! HUZZAH!

Gatling

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

We've got the planes, we've got the missiles,

They got the missles alright .

Right up their arses .


So have they decided to show the missles they claimed to have shotdown yet or are they changing the story again

Franz Von Peppercorn

Gatling wrote: »

They got the missles alright .

Right up their arses .


So have they decided to show the missles they claimed to have shotdown yet or are they changing the story again

HUZZAH!

RebelButtMunch

cnocbui wrote: »

it's what they do.

It's a dream in a dream in a dream...

D.ream. things can only get better

mulbot

Gatling wrote: »

They got the missles alright .

Right up their arses .


So have they decided to show the missles they claimed to have shotdown yet or are they changing the story again

Are we gonna see results of over 100 missile strikes, surely 59 t hawk missiles would've caused more damage, no?

Gatling

mulbot wrote: »

Are we gonna see results of over 100 missile strikes, surely 59 t hawk missiles would've caused more damage, no?

We've seen the results publicly .
3 locations turned into rubble including before and after satellite images there was multiple buildings and structures hit by the missles.

Actually on that russia has recently made claims they shot down 80 plus missles despite only 40 anti aircraft missles fired after the strikes had finished.
So they claimed that they successfully tracked , targeted and shotdown 80 missles with only 40 rockets ehhh no the utter bolloxolgy.
The other claims involved claiming many of the 100 + US , french ,UK missles failed due to mechanical reason and they have captured many of them.
The latest claim now is russia captured the latest cruise missiles and are now Claiming to be in Moscow being integrated into russian systems to improve them.


Maths for a start seems to be an issue for russia