Chemical weapon used on civilians in Syria + Airstrikes

Annd9

Very interesting revelations coming out about the "chemical " attacks in Syria .
https://mobile.twitter.com/wikileaks/status/1210561455977893893

It seems the guys working on the ground for the OPCW did their job very well , unfortunately it did not suit the narrative .

Dohnjoe

Annd9 wrote: »

Very interesting revelations coming out about the "chemical " attacks in Syria .
https://mobile.twitter.com/wikileaks/status/1210561455977893893

It seems the guys working on the ground for the OPCW did their job very well , unfortunately it did not suit the narrative .

Wikileaks is not an impartial or objective organisation as they have demonstrated many times. The piece you've linked is their editorial, their "take". In recent years they have declined fast. For example, I've seen them publish a ridiculous 911 conspiracy story that was mailed into Stratfor via a contact form and release it as a "leak"

As for the OPCW report on the Duoma chemical attacks, it seems there has been some disagreement within the team, and other actors (e.g. Russia, Syria) have been quick to exploit that, using it as part of their propaganda on the issue

There have been many chemical attacks carried out in Syria, the evidence has pointed to Assad in most of the cases (typically chlorine barrels being dropped by helicopters), although there are several where rebels/extremists have been suspected

The context for anyone interested:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douma_chemical_attack

pure.conya

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Wikileaks is not an impartial or objective organisation as they have demonstrated many times. The piece you've linked is their editorial, their "take". In recent years they have declined fast. For example, I've seen them publish a ridiculous 911 conspiracy story that was mailed into Stratfor via a contact form and release it as a "leak"

As for the OPCW report on the Duoma chemical attacks, it seems there has been some disagreement within the team, and other actors (e.g. Russia, Syria) have been quick to exploit that, using it as part of their propaganda on the issue

There have been many chemical attacks carried out in Syria, the evidence has pointed to Assad in most of the cases (typically chlorine barrels being dropped by helicopters), although there are several where rebels/extremists have been suspected

The context for anyone interested:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douma_chemical_attack

care to provide a link to this seemingly one document wikileaks released that can be proven untrue? If this is a reason to not trust them, then how you can believe other sources drowning in lies and spin that claim Assad had to have used chemical weapons is beyond me

Annd9

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Wikileaks is not an impartial or objective organisation as they have demonstrated many times. The piece you've linked is their editorial, their "take". In recent years they have declined fast. For example, I've seen them publish a ridiculous 911 conspiracy story that was mailed into Stratfor via a contact form and release it as a "leak"

As for the OPCW report on the Duoma chemical attacks, it seems there has been some disagreement within the team, and other actors (e.g. Russia, Syria) have been quick to exploit that, using it as part of their propaganda on the issue

There have been many chemical attacks carried out in Syria, the evidence has pointed to Assad in most of the cases (typically chlorine barrels being dropped by helicopters), although there are several where rebels/extremists have been suspected

The context for anyone interested:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douma_chemical_attack

Having read through a lot of this latest dump I feel you really are clutching at straws , I'm not disagreeing that Assad is a pr*ck but from the get go this attack just made no sense.
There had been absolutely no disagreement with anybody who actually visited the site that a chemical attack was unlikely to have occurred (mainly journalists) , finally we see what the real experts found .
For them to say that exuming bodies to test for chemicals would be a waste of time shows how little evidence there was and how close we were to another Iraq and fictional motives for War .

Gatling

Still trolling how sad

Annd9

Gatling wrote: »

Still trolling how sad

Ah Gatling I knew you would be back , avoiding debate by throwing around falsehoods such as me(or anyone who disagrees with you) being a Russian bot and now a troll :rolleyes: .

Gatling

Annd9 wrote: »

Ah Gatling I knew you would be back

I never went away



Putina

Elmer Blooker

Gatling wrote: »

I never went away

No, Jihadist apologists never go away.

ILoveYourVibes

I've met some Syrians in Ireland. Its so sad. The things they must have seen.

Dohnjoe

pure.conya wrote: »

care to provide a link to this seemingly one document wikileaks released that can be proven untrue? If this is a reason to not trust them, then how you can believe other sources drowning in lies and spin that claim Assad had to have used chemical weapons is beyond me

Wikileaks is a partisan site. The piece linked here was one of their editorials. I used to actually fund them years ago before they turned into a ****show

As for the docs the editorials are based on, oh I am sure they are real. But they would need to be read with all docs to understand the context.

Dohnjoe

Annd9 wrote: »

Ah Gatling I knew you would be back , avoiding debate by throwing around falsehoods such as me(or anyone who disagrees with you) being a Russian bot and now a troll :rolleyes: .

I followed the Arab spring and Syria conflict since the outset, it's impossible to debate online, especially here on boards, chock full of partisan contrarians and pro-Putin trolls