FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Idlib - Chemical attack
Idlib - Chemical attack
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By *oo hot OP Couple
over a year ago
North West |
Horrific pictures on the news over the last couple of days and almost everyone immediately blaming Assad and stating that all the evidence points to his regime being to blame.
Something, somehow is not right about this whole story though and I am not convinced that the Assad regime can be blamed until there has been independent verification. Juast because Idlib is in rebel hands does not necessarily mean that the Assad regime did it. Considering that they are rololing back the rebels on all fronts - there is no real motivation for Assad to do this.
The rebels have chemical weapons and one equally plausible circumstance could be that a regular air strike struck a munitions store that also held chemical warheads. This "over explosive" release of the gas (sarin we are told) could explain why the death toll is so relatively low (for sarin). |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
For once we can agree on somthing.
assad knowing the whole worlds watching has nothing to gain from using a chemical strike.
But the west whos been intent of regime chamge in syria for years now has somthing to gain by pinning this on him even if they know it isnt. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I was just listening to the former British ambassador to Syria on the radio, he seemed rather alarmed at the way the government through the media constantly push Assad as the problem.
I think Syria unfortunately has been the battleground for the major powers to fight over, Russia and Iran on one side with the us, UK and Europe on the other.
Russia and Iran have obviously decided that they wont be pushed anymore for western regime change |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Assad is a brutal dictator as was his father before him.We will have to wait and see who is responsible for this atrocity.
However it seems strange that people are shocked by a chemical attack as the death toll is small compared to the total death toll of civilians and children since the beginning of the war.I guess its the method that disturbs some. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oo hot OP Couple
over a year ago
North West |
"Assad is a brutal dictator as was his father before him.We will have to wait and see who is responsible for this atrocity.
However it seems strange that people are shocked by a chemical attack as the death toll is small compared to the total death toll of civilians and children since the beginning of the war.I guess its the method that disturbs some."
If sarin was released conventionally, the death toll would already be in the many thousands. The relatively low death toll from an alleged sarin attack is suspicious in its own right. This why I think that the sarin was present in an arms dump that was hit and the primary and secondary blasts would have the effect of neutralising a lot (but not all) of the sarin. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Assad is a brutal dictator as was his father before him.We will have to wait and see who is responsible for this atrocity.
However it seems strange that people are shocked by a chemical attack as the death toll is small compared to the total death toll of civilians and children since the beginning of the war.I guess its the method that disturbs some.
If sarin was released conventionally, the death toll would already be in the many thousands. The relatively low death toll from an alleged sarin attack is suspicious in its own right. This why I think that the sarin was present in an arms dump that was hit and the primary and secondary blasts would have the effect of neutralising a lot (but not all) of the sarin."
You could be right.Lets assume you are correct who is to blame.?If we assume it was a syrian air strike on a chemical weapons dump that previously was part of Assads miltary.I think the blame falls on Assad.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oo hot OP Couple
over a year ago
North West |
"Assad is a brutal dictator as was his father before him.We will have to wait and see who is responsible for this atrocity.
However it seems strange that people are shocked by a chemical attack as the death toll is small compared to the total death toll of civilians and children since the beginning of the war.I guess its the method that disturbs some.
If sarin was released conventionally, the death toll would already be in the many thousands. The relatively low death toll from an alleged sarin attack is suspicious in its own right. This why I think that the sarin was present in an arms dump that was hit and the primary and secondary blasts would have the effect of neutralising a lot (but not all) of the sarin.You could be right.Lets assume you are correct who is to blame.?If we assume it was a syrian air strike on a chemical weapons dump that previously was part of Assads miltary.I think the blame falls on Assad.
"
For all Assad's faults he has a professional and organised army who would never have had any kind of munitions storage in civilian areas. Rebels will store munitions anywhere and especially in civilian areas if they are geographically limited anyway. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Assad is a brutal dictator as was his father before him.We will have to wait and see who is responsible for this atrocity.
However it seems strange that people are shocked by a chemical attack as the death toll is small compared to the total death toll of civilians and children since the beginning of the war.I guess its the method that disturbs some.
If sarin was released conventionally, the death toll would already be in the many thousands. The relatively low death toll from an alleged sarin attack is suspicious in its own right. This why I think that the sarin was present in an arms dump that was hit and the primary and secondary blasts would have the effect of neutralising a lot (but not all) of the sarin.You could be right.Lets assume you are correct who is to blame.?If we assume it was a syrian air strike on a chemical weapons dump that previously was part of Assads miltary.I think the blame falls on Assad.
For all Assad's faults he has a professional and organised army who would never have had any kind of munitions storage in civilian areas. Rebels will store munitions anywhere and especially in civilian areas if they are geographically limited anyway."
So Assad bombed a civilian area that contained some of his stolen chemical weapons.Hes still responsible. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"Assad is a brutal dictator as was his father before him.We will have to wait and see who is responsible for this atrocity.
However it seems strange that people are shocked by a chemical attack as the death toll is small compared to the total death toll of civilians and children since the beginning of the war.I guess its the method that disturbs some.
If sarin was released conventionally, the death toll would already be in the many thousands. The relatively low death toll from an alleged sarin attack is suspicious in its own right. This why I think that the sarin was present in an arms dump that was hit and the primary and secondary blasts would have the effect of neutralising a lot (but not all) of the sarin.You could be right.Lets assume you are correct who is to blame.?If we assume it was a syrian air strike on a chemical weapons dump that previously was part of Assads miltary.I think the blame falls on Assad.
For all Assad's faults he has a professional and organised army who would never have had any kind of munitions storage in civilian areas. Rebels will store munitions anywhere and especially in civilian areas if they are geographically limited anyway."
Professional and organised? They have been throwing barrels filled with explosives out of the doors of helicopters, indiscriminately into civilian areas for years. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oo hot OP Couple
over a year ago
North West |
"Assad is a brutal dictator as was his father before him.We will have to wait and see who is responsible for this atrocity.
However it seems strange that people are shocked by a chemical attack as the death toll is small compared to the total death toll of civilians and children since the beginning of the war.I guess its the method that disturbs some.
If sarin was released conventionally, the death toll would already be in the many thousands. The relatively low death toll from an alleged sarin attack is suspicious in its own right. This why I think that the sarin was present in an arms dump that was hit and the primary and secondary blasts would have the effect of neutralising a lot (but not all) of the sarin.You could be right.Lets assume you are correct who is to blame.?If we assume it was a syrian air strike on a chemical weapons dump that previously was part of Assads miltary.I think the blame falls on Assad.
For all Assad's faults he has a professional and organised army who would never have had any kind of munitions storage in civilian areas. Rebels will store munitions anywhere and especially in civilian areas if they are geographically limited anyway.
Professional and organised? They have been throwing barrels filled with explosives out of the doors of helicopters, indiscriminately into civilian areas for years. "
I don't dispute that. Nor do I dispute that the regime is barbaric.
I dispute the allegation without proof that the Assad regime conducted a chemical attack against civilians in Idlib. There was no motive to do so and the effects of the sarin were relatively insignificant compared to how they would have been had the sarin been conventionally delivered.
I believe that the rebels had sarin in storage and that it was partially destroyed in a regular air raid by Assad forces. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"Assad is a brutal dictator as was his father before him.We will have to wait and see who is responsible for this atrocity.
However it seems strange that people are shocked by a chemical attack as the death toll is small compared to the total death toll of civilians and children since the beginning of the war.I guess its the method that disturbs some.
If sarin was released conventionally, the death toll would already be in the many thousands. The relatively low death toll from an alleged sarin attack is suspicious in its own right. This why I think that the sarin was present in an arms dump that was hit and the primary and secondary blasts would have the effect of neutralising a lot (but not all) of the sarin.You could be right.Lets assume you are correct who is to blame.?If we assume it was a syrian air strike on a chemical weapons dump that previously was part of Assads miltary.I think the blame falls on Assad.
For all Assad's faults he has a professional and organised army who would never have had any kind of munitions storage in civilian areas. Rebels will store munitions anywhere and especially in civilian areas if they are geographically limited anyway.
Professional and organised? They have been throwing barrels filled with explosives out of the doors of helicopters, indiscriminately into civilian areas for years.
I don't dispute that. Nor do I dispute that the regime is barbaric.
I dispute the allegation without proof that the Assad regime conducted a chemical attack against civilians in Idlib. There was no motive to do so and the effects of the sarin were relatively insignificant compared to how they would have been had the sarin been conventionally delivered.
I believe that the rebels had sarin in storage and that it was partially destroyed in a regular air raid by Assad forces."
Ok, you don't believe one theory without evidence, so why do you believe another theory without evidence? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Glad to see that normal people are keeping an open mind about this,shame some of the governments arent, anyones guess as to who is responsible, despicable who ever did it"
Whoever is behind it is cowardly scum. Simple as.
Political machinations to try to achieve their aims through whatever means they see fit, taking the lives of innocent children like pawns in a game of chess. Unfortunately we'll never get a definitive truth, as is always the way.
If they had any balls AT ALL, they'd put their heads up above the parapet and be prepared to go toe-to-toe with their enemies. As I've already stated, they're cowardly scum and I wouldn't piss on them if they were on fire!!!
I'd love to have just 10 minutes in a sealed room with the people responsible!!! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oo hot OP Couple
over a year ago
North West |
"Assad is a brutal dictator as was his father before him.We will have to wait and see who is responsible for this atrocity.
However it seems strange that people are shocked by a chemical attack as the death toll is small compared to the total death toll of civilians and children since the beginning of the war.I guess its the method that disturbs some.
If sarin was released conventionally, the death toll would already be in the many thousands. The relatively low death toll from an alleged sarin attack is suspicious in its own right. This why I think that the sarin was present in an arms dump that was hit and the primary and secondary blasts would have the effect of neutralising a lot (but not all) of the sarin.You could be right.Lets assume you are correct who is to blame.?If we assume it was a syrian air strike on a chemical weapons dump that previously was part of Assads miltary.I think the blame falls on Assad.
For all Assad's faults he has a professional and organised army who would never have had any kind of munitions storage in civilian areas. Rebels will store munitions anywhere and especially in civilian areas if they are geographically limited anyway.
Professional and organised? They have been throwing barrels filled with explosives out of the doors of helicopters, indiscriminately into civilian areas for years.
I don't dispute that. Nor do I dispute that the regime is barbaric.
I dispute the allegation without proof that the Assad regime conducted a chemical attack against civilians in Idlib. There was no motive to do so and the effects of the sarin were relatively insignificant compared to how they would have been had the sarin been conventionally delivered.
I believe that the rebels had sarin in storage and that it was partially destroyed in a regular air raid by Assad forces.
Ok, you don't believe one theory without evidence, so why do you believe another theory without evidence? "
There is no evidence that Assad forces used sarin gas on civilians other than Idlib is in rebel hands. There is no evidence that rebels conducted a false flag operation to blame Assad forces.
What evidence is there?
Multiple people suffered sarin poisoning but only a relatively small number have died. A sarin attack would have had up to 100x more casualties. Why was the sarin so weak?
There are pictures and video widely available and broadcast on most news channels of rescuers wearing only ineffective gas masks and hosing people down. Had conventionally delivered sarin been in the air, the rescuers would be dead before they could be filmed.
What circumstances could have brought about this evidence?...
There is only one circumstance. Over combustion and that can only happen via a detonation many, many times larger than the detonation needed to conventionally deliver it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
There's no evidence that the rebels have access to the facilities needed to produce sarin. If they do have it its stolen from captured government supplies which, for me, mKe the region at least, if not mostly, responsible. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"Assad is a brutal dictator as was his father before him.We will have to wait and see who is responsible for this atrocity.
However it seems strange that people are shocked by a chemical attack as the death toll is small compared to the total death toll of civilians and children since the beginning of the war.I guess its the method that disturbs some.
If sarin was released conventionally, the death toll would already be in the many thousands. The relatively low death toll from an alleged sarin attack is suspicious in its own right. This why I think that the sarin was present in an arms dump that was hit and the primary and secondary blasts would have the effect of neutralising a lot (but not all) of the sarin.You could be right.Lets assume you are correct who is to blame.?If we assume it was a syrian air strike on a chemical weapons dump that previously was part of Assads miltary.I think the blame falls on Assad.
For all Assad's faults he has a professional and organised army who would never have had any kind of munitions storage in civilian areas. Rebels will store munitions anywhere and especially in civilian areas if they are geographically limited anyway.
Professional and organised? They have been throwing barrels filled with explosives out of the doors of helicopters, indiscriminately into civilian areas for years.
I don't dispute that. Nor do I dispute that the regime is barbaric.
I dispute the allegation without proof that the Assad regime conducted a chemical attack against civilians in Idlib. There was no motive to do so and the effects of the sarin were relatively insignificant compared to how they would have been had the sarin been conventionally delivered.
I believe that the rebels had sarin in storage and that it was partially destroyed in a regular air raid by Assad forces.
Ok, you don't believe one theory without evidence, so why do you believe another theory without evidence?
There is no evidence that Assad forces used sarin gas on civilians other than Idlib is in rebel hands. There is no evidence that rebels conducted a false flag operation to blame Assad forces.
What evidence is there?
Multiple people suffered sarin poisoning but only a relatively small number have died. A sarin attack would have had up to 100x more casualties. Why was the sarin so weak?
There are pictures and video widely available and broadcast on most news channels of rescuers wearing only ineffective gas masks and hosing people down. Had conventionally delivered sarin been in the air, the rescuers would be dead before they could be filmed.
What circumstances could have brought about this evidence?...
There is only one circumstance. Over combustion and that can only happen via a detonation many, many times larger than the detonation needed to conventionally deliver it."
You are talking about conventionally delivered sarin, however we already know that the Assad regime is using unconventional weapons such as the barrel bombs mentioned above. Do you think that the lower death count could have come from unconventional delivery, or perhaps inproper storage, or lower quality sarin being produced by the Assad regime? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
The chemical weapons belonged to Assad and his miltary.They obviously weren't in secure location and were stolen.Assad is responsible for the bombing of the weapons and is responsible for allowing them to get into rebel hands.The alternative is he ordered a chemical attack.Either way he is responsible. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oo hot OP Couple
over a year ago
North West |
"The chemical weapons belonged to Assad and his miltary.They obviously weren't in secure location and were stolen.Assad is responsible for the bombing of the weapons and is responsible for allowing them to get into rebel hands.The alternative is he ordered a chemical attack.Either way he is responsible. "
Both of you former statements are correct. But they are not the arguments being made on virtually all conventional news channels which are focusing on your latter statement about Assad ordering an attack.
I keep saying that I hold no truck or view of Assad being anything other than what he is. The UN oversaw the destruction of Assads chemical weapons a couple of years ago but they could not destroy weapons that were held in rebel areas and the rebels had no capabilities and so no real use for them other than dismantling and using as dirty weapons.
The media is wrong to be making the accusations that they are making without an independent enquiry. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"There's no evidence that the rebels have access to the facilities needed to produce sarin. If they do have it its stolen from captured government supplies which, for me, mKe the region at least, if not mostly, responsible."
Unlikely the rebels are making it but very likely there was some left over after the declared chemical weapons were destroyed a couple of years ago.
Apparently chemical weapons are also being used in Sudan/Darfur so it does seem to be becoming more of a problem. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The chemical weapons belonged to Assad and his miltary.They obviously weren't in secure location and were stolen.Assad is responsible for the bombing of the weapons and is responsible for allowing them to get into rebel hands.The alternative is he ordered a chemical attack.Either way he is responsible. "
.
How do you know any of this for definite?.
Im not saying they didnt but frankly i have no ideas, as do most analysis,sarin is not that hard to make, they used it in Tokyo twenty years ago on the subway! In reality most chemical weapons come down to a willingness to use them not an availability to get get hold of them |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Assad is a brutal dictator as was his father before him.We will have to wait and see who is responsible for this atrocity.
However it seems strange that people are shocked by a chemical attack as the death toll is small compared to the total death toll of civilians and children since the beginning of the war.I guess its the method that disturbs some.
If sarin was released conventionally, the death toll would already be in the many thousands. The relatively low death toll from an alleged sarin attack is suspicious in its own right. This why I think that the sarin was present in an arms dump that was hit and the primary and secondary blasts would have the effect of neutralising a lot (but not all) of the sarin.You could be right.Lets assume you are correct who is to blame.?If we assume it was a syrian air strike on a chemical weapons dump that previously was part of Assads miltary.I think the blame falls on Assad.
For all Assad's faults he has a professional and organised army who would never have had any kind of munitions storage in civilian areas. Rebels will store munitions anywhere and especially in civilian areas if they are geographically limited anyway.
Professional and organised? They have been throwing barrels filled with explosives out of the doors of helicopters, indiscriminately into civilian areas for years.
I don't dispute that. Nor do I dispute that the regime is barbaric.
I dispute the allegation without proof that the Assad regime conducted a chemical attack against civilians in Idlib. There was no motive to do so and the effects of the sarin were relatively insignificant compared to how they would have been had the sarin been conventionally delivered.
I believe that the rebels had sarin in storage and that it was partially destroyed in a regular air raid by Assad forces.
Ok, you don't believe one theory without evidence, so why do you believe another theory without evidence? "
.
Why do you believe your theory without any evidence? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Assad is a brutal dictator as was his father before him.We will have to wait and see who is responsible for this atrocity.
However it seems strange that people are shocked by a chemical attack as the death toll is small compared to the total death toll of civilians and children since the beginning of the war.I guess its the method that disturbs some.
If sarin was released conventionally, the death toll would already be in the many thousands. The relatively low death toll from an alleged sarin attack is suspicious in its own right. This why I think that the sarin was present in an arms dump that was hit and the primary and secondary blasts would have the effect of neutralising a lot (but not all) of the sarin.You could be right.Lets assume you are correct who is to blame.?If we assume it was a syrian air strike on a chemical weapons dump that previously was part of Assads miltary.I think the blame falls on Assad.
For all Assad's faults he has a professional and organised army who would never have had any kind of munitions storage in civilian areas. Rebels will store munitions anywhere and especially in civilian areas if they are geographically limited anyway.
Professional and organised? They have been throwing barrels filled with explosives out of the doors of helicopters, indiscriminately into civilian areas for years. "
.
Again youve got no proof whatsoever of anything outside of normal civil war problems, weve already seen how you put 2+2 together and make 5 to suit your own beliefs!.
So Assads a knob, so what, so are the guys hes fighting, there all fucking knobs that are quite willing and have killed civilians for their own gain, the CIA are training Assad rebels in Jordan, they say rebels it sounds better than Isis |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
So the sarin attack has now been confirmed by autopsies carried out by the world health organisation.
Hamish de Bretton-Gordon (how could you fail to get commission with a name like that) who was the former Commanding Officer of the UK CBRN (chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear) Regiment, as well as being the Commanding Officer of NATO's Rapid Reaction CBRN battalion says "No I think this [claim] is pretty fanciful, no doubt the Russians trying to protect their allies,” he said. “Axiomatically, if you blow up sarin, you destroy it.”
“It’s very clear it’s a sarin attack,” he added. “The view that it’s an al-Qaida or rebel stockpile of sarin that’s been blown up in an explosion, I think is completely unsustainable and completely untrue.” |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oo hot OP Couple
over a year ago
North West |
"So the sarin attack has now been confirmed by autopsies carried out by the world health organisation.
Hamish de Bretton-Gordon (how could you fail to get commission with a name like that) who was the former Commanding Officer of the UK CBRN (chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear) Regiment, as well as being the Commanding Officer of NATO's Rapid Reaction CBRN battalion says "No I think this [claim] is pretty fanciful, no doubt the Russians trying to protect their allies,” he said. “Axiomatically, if you blow up sarin, you destroy it.”
“It’s very clear it’s a sarin attack,” he added. “The view that it’s an al-Qaida or rebel stockpile of sarin that’s been blown up in an explosion, I think is completely unsustainable and completely untrue.”"
Not all Ruperts are experts. The clue is in what he said and what i said earlier in the thread. If you over explode the detonation on the delivery system you will nuetralise much of the gas. Some gas was left and hence relatively minimal casualties (for sarin).
The bottom line is that no-one can make any factual assertions without some independent evaluation of the site. His opinion is simply an opinion but one I find very surprising considering that he would (or at least should) know that an effective sarin attacki would have killed everyone and the ones who came to pick up the bodies and the ones who were being treated. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
They have more or less proved that it was probably saren gas but they have still not proved that it was actually deployed and not as a result of an attac I.e blown up storage facility.
Because if it had been deployed the chances are the deaths would have been much higher.
Assad is indeed an ass hole but if you get rid of him another ass hope will just take his place  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"They have more or less proved that it was probably saren gas but they have still not proved that it was actually deployed and not as a result of an attac I.e blown up storage facility.
Because if it had been deployed the chances are the deaths would have been much higher.
Assad is indeed an ass hole but if you get rid of him another ass hope will just take his place "
.
It would appear if you look at it, that Assad was our asshole and his dad was our asshole before him, we now need a different asshole because this asshole is no longer our asshole but somebody elses asshole.
Theres plenty of assholes running Afghanistan with democracy today and it hasnt really cured the Afghan refugee problem or the bombings or shit and Libya has gone from about 40th in wealth terms to second from last and is currently a Shithole full of assholes running it, so im not really buying into this Assad has to go theory, you only need to look at all the other "regime change" places to realise its entirely possible for Syria to go from bad to shit with more change.
What we actually need to do, is help Assad as much as possible to bring to an end the terrorism in Syria with his assurance that as soon as stability is returned he must bring some democratic elections into place where he can transfer power and stability too the new government |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"They have more or less proved that it was probably saren gas but they have still not proved that it was actually deployed and not as a result of an attac I.e blown up storage facility.
Because if it had been deployed the chances are the deaths would have been much higher.
Assad is indeed an ass hole but if you get rid of him another ass hope will just take his place .
It would appear if you look at it, that Assad was our asshole and his dad was our asshole before him, we now need a different asshole because this asshole is no longer our asshole but somebody elses asshole.
Theres plenty of assholes running Afghanistan with democracy today and it hasnt really cured the Afghan refugee problem or the bombings or shit and Libya has gone from about 40th in wealth terms to second from last and is currently a Shithole full of assholes running it, so im not really buying into this Assad has to go theory, you only need to look at all the other "regime change" places to realise its entirely possible for Syria to go from bad to shit with more change.
What we actually need to do, is help Assad as much as possible to bring to an end the terrorism in Syria with his assurance that as soon as stability is returned he must bring some democratic elections into place where he can transfer power and stability too the new government"
 I agree |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
DEJA VU anybody
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uv2XS0TVHQo&ab_channel=HoaxBustersCall
the news is BS, has been all my life and i been aware for far to long and its amazing how many people have no idea of the lengths of propaganda they are taking as truth
more chance of a rocking horse shitting in the woods than Assad giving the west the green light to invade and build its pipeline
no matter who is elected leader, the policy will continue, both obama and trump promised to end wars, they could of been telling the truth until they met the real bosses who laughed and said put on these strings |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *mmmMaybeCouple
over a year ago
West Wales |
"Assad is a brutal dictator as was his father before him.We will have to wait and see who is responsible for this atrocity.
However it seems strange that people are shocked by a chemical attack as the death toll is small compared to the total death toll of civilians and children since the beginning of the war.I guess its the method that disturbs some.
If sarin was released conventionally, the death toll would already be in the many thousands. The relatively low death toll from an alleged sarin attack is suspicious in its own right. This why I think that the sarin was present in an arms dump that was hit and the primary and secondary blasts would have the effect of neutralising a lot (but not all) of the sarin.You could be right.Lets assume you are correct who is to blame.?If we assume it was a syrian air strike on a chemical weapons dump that previously was part of Assads miltary.I think the blame falls on Assad.
For all Assad's faults he has a professional and organised army who would never have had any kind of munitions storage in civilian areas. Rebels will store munitions anywhere and especially in civilian areas if they are geographically limited anyway.So Assad bombed a civilian area that contained some of his stolen chemical weapons.Hes still responsible."
By that reasoning your car with no brakes I just stole off your drive and mowed down & killed ten people at a bus stop with was your fault?
S |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oo hot OP Couple
over a year ago
North West |
Slowly, the other story has now started to appear: Syria chemical attack: Vladimir Putin slams 'groundless' accusations against ally Bashar al-Assad's regime - The Independent
https://apple.news/AfV-5I_UKQdC8kIORcRuAQQ
You could of course say... "Well he would say that wouldn't' the," but what is he asking for? Nothing more than the blame game to stop until there is a full investigation.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Assad is a brutal dictator as was his father before him.We will have to wait and see who is responsible for this atrocity.
However it seems strange that people are shocked by a chemical attack as the death toll is small compared to the total death toll of civilians and children since the beginning of the war.I guess its the method that disturbs some.
If sarin was released conventionally, the death toll would already be in the many thousands. The relatively low death toll from an alleged sarin attack is suspicious in its own right. This why I think that the sarin was present in an arms dump that was hit and the primary and secondary blasts would have the effect of neutralising a lot (but not all) of the sarin.You could be right.Lets assume you are correct who is to blame.?If we assume it was a syrian air strike on a chemical weapons dump that previously was part of Assads miltary.I think the blame falls on Assad.
For all Assad's faults he has a professional and organised army who would never have had any kind of munitions storage in civilian areas. Rebels will store munitions anywhere and especially in civilian areas if they are geographically limited anyway.So Assad bombed a civilian area that contained some of his stolen chemical weapons.Hes still responsible.
By that reasoning your car with no brakes I just stole off your drive and mowed down & killed ten people at a bus stop with was your fault?
S"
Thats some absurd relativism.So if british chemical weapons were stolen from inside the uk you wouldn't place any blame on the government. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I think the fact chemicals were used takes us away from what should be the main Point !
Which is !
No atacks should be made from any side which are going to harm children and non combatants ! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I think the fact chemicals were used takes us away from what should be the main Point !
Which is !
No atacks should be made from any side which are going to harm children and non combatants ! "
Very true.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"Slowly, the other story has now started to appear: Syria chemical attack: Vladimir Putin slams 'groundless' accusations against ally Bashar al-Assad's regime - The Independent
https://apple.news/AfV-5I_UKQdC8kIORcRuAQQ
You could of course say... "Well he would say that wouldn't' the," but what is he asking for? Nothing more than the blame game to stop until there is a full investigation.
"
i think the more interesting comments were the ones after this... in which he said russia's support for al assad is not unconditional....
interesting diplo-speak
sounds like russia is distancing itself from syria on this one..... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"I think the fact chemicals were used takes us away from what should be the main Point !
Which is !
No atacks should be made from any side which are going to harm children and non combatants ! "
Small arms are far and away the biggest weapon of mass destruction. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Just playing devil's advocate here,
How does the alleged chemical attack terrible ad it is, compare with allied bombing in mosul that's killed 200 plus civilians in 1 raid alone in iraq and is 100% chance the Americans did it. Survivors saying its worse tban being occupied by isis |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oo hot OP Couple
over a year ago
North West |
"Just playing devil's advocate here,
How does the alleged chemical attack terrible ad it is, compare with allied bombing in mosul that's killed 200 plus civilians in 1 raid alone in iraq and is 100% chance the Americans did it. Survivors saying its worse tban being occupied by isis"
You have absolutely hit the nail on the head and there is an argument to suggest that chemical attack that remains unproven and subsequent cruise missile attack makes for an effective diversion from the Mosul atrocity.
Interesting that a number of days in from the chemical attack - still no evidence. Two days on from the Tomahawk attack - no evidence that munitions (chemical or otherwise) were hit and no proof whatsoever that the Smericans have identified where the chemical weapons are and how they were supposedly delivered. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Just playing devil's advocate here,
How does the alleged chemical attack terrible ad it is, compare with allied bombing in mosul that's killed 200 plus civilians in 1 raid alone in iraq and is 100% chance the Americans did it. Survivors saying its worse tban being occupied by isis
You have absolutely hit the nail on the head and there is an argument to suggest that chemical attack that remains unproven and subsequent cruise missile attack makes for an effective diversion from the Mosul atrocity.
Interesting that a number of days in from the chemical attack - still no evidence. Two days on from the Tomahawk attack - no evidence that munitions (chemical or otherwise) were hit and no proof whatsoever that the Smericans have identified where the chemical weapons are and how they were supposedly delivered."
we dont often agree on much but 100% agree with you on this particular subject |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"Just playing devil's advocate here,
How does the alleged chemical attack terrible ad it is, compare with allied bombing in mosul that's killed 200 plus civilians in 1 raid alone in iraq and is 100% chance the Americans did it. Survivors saying its worse tban being occupied by isis"
There are a few key differences.
1) The American's weren't deliberately targeting civilians, Assad was, not just with this chemical attack, but with historic chemical attacks, as well as with convention and improvised munitions for years.
2) ISIS deliberately hearded a number of families into that building to use as human shields, and then ISIS placed a number of snipers on the roof to attack Iraqi forces retaking an Iraqi town. Those people were put in harms way by ISIS on purpose.
3) It was an Iraqi JTAC on the ground that directed the US plane to drop it's bombs. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Just playing devil's advocate here,
How does the alleged chemical attack terrible ad it is, compare with allied bombing in mosul that's killed 200 plus civilians in 1 raid alone in iraq and is 100% chance the Americans did it. Survivors saying its worse tban being occupied by isis
There are a few key differences.
1) The American's weren't deliberately targeting civilians, Assad was, not just with this chemical attack, but with historic chemical attacks, as well as with convention and improvised munitions for years.
2) ISIS deliberately hearded a number of families into that building to use as human shields, and then ISIS placed a number of snipers on the roof to attack Iraqi forces retaking an Iraqi town. Those people were put in harms way by ISIS on purpose.
3) It was an Iraqi JTAC on the ground that directed the US plane to drop it's bombs."
ISIS or the rebels? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *onyxptMan
over a year ago
st neots, living in Albufeira-Algarve-Portugal |
"Just playing devil's advocate here,
How does the alleged chemical attack terrible ad it is, compare with allied bombing in mosul that's killed 200 plus civilians in 1 raid alone in iraq and is 100% chance the Americans did it. Survivors saying its worse tban being occupied by isis
There are a few key differences.
1) The American's weren't deliberately targeting civilians, Assad was, not just with this chemical attack, but with historic chemical attacks, as well as with convention and improvised munitions for years.
2) ISIS deliberately hearded a number of families into that building to use as human shields, and then ISIS placed a number of snipers on the roof to attack Iraqi forces retaking an Iraqi town. Those people were put in harms way by ISIS on purpose.
3) It was an Iraqi JTAC on the ground that directed the US plane to drop it's bombs."
Good factual summary ! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Just playing devil's advocate here,
How does the alleged chemical attack terrible ad it is, compare with allied bombing in mosul that's killed 200 plus civilians in 1 raid alone in iraq and is 100% chance the Americans did it. Survivors saying its worse tban being occupied by isis
There are a few key differences.
1) The American's weren't deliberately targeting civilians, Assad was, not just with this chemical attack, but with historic chemical attacks, as well as with convention and improvised munitions for years.
2) ISIS deliberately hearded a number of families into that building to use as human shields, and then ISIS placed a number of snipers on the roof to attack Iraqi forces retaking an Iraqi town. Those people were put in harms way by ISIS on purpose.
3) It was an Iraqi JTAC on the ground that directed the US plane to drop it's bombs."
.
Have you read Seymour Hershs story into the 2013 gas attack?.
Its very interesting |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *onyxptMan
over a year ago
st neots, living in Albufeira-Algarve-Portugal |
"Just playing devil's advocate here,
How does the alleged chemical attack terrible ad it is, compare with allied bombing in mosul that's killed 200 plus civilians in 1 raid alone in iraq and is 100% chance the Americans did it. Survivors saying its worse tban being occupied by isis
There are a few key differences.
1) The American's weren't deliberately targeting civilians, Assad was, not just with this chemical attack, but with historic chemical attacks, as well as with convention and improvised munitions for years.
2) ISIS deliberately hearded a number of families into that building to use as human shields, and then ISIS placed a number of snipers on the roof to attack Iraqi forces retaking an Iraqi town. Those people were put in harms way by ISIS on purpose.
3) It was an Iraqi JTAC on the ground that directed the US plane to drop it's bombs..
Have you read Seymour Hershs story into the 2013 gas attack?.
Its very interesting"
Do you mean this one ?
https://www.lrb.co.uk/v35/n24/seymour-m-hersh/whose-sarin
Its a very interesting article. I had not come across this one , but once again it paints a very damning picture of Obama .... the Nobel peace winner!
It also proves how much damage a biased press can do , when they fail to do their job , and scrutinise the administration , just because of political preference ....oh! And lets not forget the guy was cool!
If the scrutiny had been on the same level as they have on Trump now , he might not have got away with it !
I actually discussed this on another thread ! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I'm working with Syrian refugees in my volunteering. They are not a fan of Assad or the rebels/ISIS, the Kurds or anyone else fighting. I believe the people are the only innocents here.
The gas attacks so seem conspicuous to achieve the means of the US. But the civil war began way before the attack. I wonder what triggered the US to be involved? Oil? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *onyxptMan
over a year ago
st neots, living in Albufeira-Algarve-Portugal |
"I'm working with Syrian refugees in my volunteering. They are not a fan of Assad or the rebels/ISIS, the Kurds or anyone else fighting. I believe the people are the only innocents here.
The gas attacks so seem conspicuous to achieve the means of the US. But the civil war began way before the attack. I wonder what triggered the US to be involved? Oil?"
Oil? NO!
Its been a while since the US has depended on oil from the middle east !
Its more about trying to stop the spread of islamic fundamentalism !
Problem is.... its gets complicated when you mix conflicting interests such as Assad , Iran, and ISIS !
Also .... Obama had to try and fix his screw up that resulted from pulling out of Iraq prematurely, something that was in itself the biggest contribution for the rise of ISIS !
People getting caught in the middle is tragic .....but unfortunately nothing new !  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oi_LucyCouple
over a year ago
Barbados |
"I'm working with Syrian refugees in my volunteering. They are not a fan of Assad or the rebels/ISIS, the Kurds or anyone else fighting. I believe the people are the only innocents here.
The gas attacks so seem conspicuous to achieve the means of the US. But the civil war began way before the attack. I wonder what triggered the US to be involved? Oil?
Oil? NO!
Its been a while since the US has depended on oil from the middle east !
Its more about trying to stop the spread of islamic fundamentalism !
Problem is.... its gets complicated when you mix conflicting interests such as Assad , Iran, and ISIS !
Also .... Obama had to try and fix his screw up that resulted from pulling out of Iraq prematurely, something that was in itself the biggest contribution for the rise of ISIS !
People getting caught in the middle is tragic .....but unfortunately nothing new ! "
Or it gets complicated when you have the former CEO of Exxon Mobil as our foreign secretary. Whose former company was hit by the sanctions the US imposed on Russia and the oil it was after in the Artic. The sanctions that the US lifted as soon as Trump was in office.
Not to mention Trumps head of defence Mattis is a share holder and board member of General Dynamics and all the defence contractors shares jumped as soon as Trump was elected.
No sireee no connection at all
-Matt |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *onyxptMan
over a year ago
st neots, living in Albufeira-Algarve-Portugal |
"I'm working with Syrian refugees in my volunteering. They are not a fan of Assad or the rebels/ISIS, the Kurds or anyone else fighting. I believe the people are the only innocents here.
The gas attacks so seem conspicuous to achieve the means of the US. But the civil war began way before the attack. I wonder what triggered the US to be involved? Oil?
Oil? NO!
Its been a while since the US has depended on oil from the middle east !
Its more about trying to stop the spread of islamic fundamentalism !
Problem is.... its gets complicated when you mix conflicting interests such as Assad , Iran, and ISIS !
Also .... Obama had to try and fix his screw up that resulted from pulling out of Iraq prematurely, something that was in itself the biggest contribution for the rise of ISIS !
People getting caught in the middle is tragic .....but unfortunately nothing new !
Or it gets complicated when you have the former CEO of Exxon Mobil as our foreign secretary. Whose former company was hit by the sanctions the US imposed on Russia and the oil it was after in the Artic. The sanctions that the US lifted as soon as Trump was in office.
Not to mention Trumps head of defence Mattis is a share holder and board member of General Dynamics and all the defence contractors shares jumped as soon as Trump was elected.
No sireee no connection at all
-Matt"
So.... its only Americas fault or problem , or bad intervention from the time Trump took office ?
How fanatical, biased and dishonest can you be? 
Oooops forgot to add superficial !  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *mmmMaybeCouple
over a year ago
West Wales |
"I'm working with Syrian refugees in my volunteering. They are not a fan of Assad or the rebels/ISIS, the Kurds or anyone else fighting. I believe the people are the only innocents here.
The gas attacks so seem conspicuous to achieve the means of the US. But the civil war began way before the attack. I wonder what triggered the US to be involved? Oil?
Oil? NO!
Its been a while since the US has depended on oil from the middle east !
Its more about trying to stop the spread of islamic fundamentalism !
Problem is.... its gets complicated when you mix conflicting interests such as Assad , Iran, and ISIS !
Also .... Obama had to try and fix his screw up that resulted from pulling out of Iraq prematurely, something that was in itself the biggest contribution for the rise of ISIS !
People getting caught in the middle is tragic .....but unfortunately nothing new ! "
In a roundabout way yes they do, if you look at volumes imported & exported the US gets a lot of oil from Canada, surprisingly so much oil they in turn need to import a shed load. Guess where it comes from? Saying they are not reliant on Middle Eastern oil is rubbish as if Middle East oil didn't exist the Canadians wouldn't sell what they have.
Its just a sop to please the masses & if the desert oil stopped flowing everyone would soon know about it no matter who (on the surface) they said they bought it from.
S |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oi_LucyCouple
over a year ago
Barbados |
"I'm working with Syrian refugees in my volunteering. They are not a fan of Assad or the rebels/ISIS, the Kurds or anyone else fighting. I believe the people are the only innocents here.
The gas attacks so seem conspicuous to achieve the means of the US. But the civil war began way before the attack. I wonder what triggered the US to be involved? Oil?
Oil? NO!
Its been a while since the US has depended on oil from the middle east !
Its more about trying to stop the spread of islamic fundamentalism !
Problem is.... its gets complicated when you mix conflicting interests such as Assad , Iran, and ISIS !
Also .... Obama had to try and fix his screw up that resulted from pulling out of Iraq prematurely, something that was in itself the biggest contribution for the rise of ISIS !
People getting caught in the middle is tragic .....but unfortunately nothing new !
Or it gets complicated when you have the former CEO of Exxon Mobil as our foreign secretary. Whose former company was hit by the sanctions the US imposed on Russia and the oil it was after in the Artic. The sanctions that the US lifted as soon as Trump was in office.
Not to mention Trumps head of defence Mattis is a share holder and board member of General Dynamics and all the defence contractors shares jumped as soon as Trump was elected.
No sireee no connection at all
-Matt
So.... its only Americas fault or problem , or bad intervention from the time Trump took office ?
How fanatical, biased and dishonest can you be?
Oooops forgot to add superficial ! "
You think it has been a problem only since Trump took office? A very deluded viewpoint, Tony. Perhaps look a bit further back.
-Matt |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *onyxptMan
over a year ago
st neots, living in Albufeira-Algarve-Portugal |
"I'm working with Syrian refugees in my volunteering. They are not a fan of Assad or the rebels/ISIS, the Kurds or anyone else fighting. I believe the people are the only innocents here.
The gas attacks so seem conspicuous to achieve the means of the US. But the civil war began way before the attack. I wonder what triggered the US to be involved? Oil?
Oil? NO!
Its been a while since the US has depended on oil from the middle east !
Its more about trying to stop the spread of islamic fundamentalism !
Problem is.... its gets complicated when you mix conflicting interests such as Assad , Iran, and ISIS !
Also .... Obama had to try and fix his screw up that resulted from pulling out of Iraq prematurely, something that was in itself the biggest contribution for the rise of ISIS !
People getting caught in the middle is tragic .....but unfortunately nothing new !
Or it gets complicated when you have the former CEO of Exxon Mobil as our foreign secretary. Whose former company was hit by the sanctions the US imposed on Russia and the oil it was after in the Artic. The sanctions that the US lifted as soon as Trump was in office.
Not to mention Trumps head of defence Mattis is a share holder and board member of General Dynamics and all the defence contractors shares jumped as soon as Trump was elected.
No sireee no connection at all
-Matt
So.... its only Americas fault or problem , or bad intervention from the time Trump took office ?
How fanatical, biased and dishonest can you be?
Oooops forgot to add superficial !
You think it has been a problem only since Trump took office? A very deluded viewpoint, Tony. Perhaps look a bit further back.
-Matt"
Lol.... either you are distracted or trying to confuse things...or both !
If you actually read what I wrote, you would notice I said no such thing ! Quite the opposite!
"So.... its only Americas fault or problem , or bad intervention from the time Trump took office ? "
Did you miss the question mark at the end ???
So ... funny enough , and in spite of your misinterpretation of my view , its seems we are in agreement !  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oi_LucyCouple
over a year ago
Barbados |
"I'm working with Syrian refugees in my volunteering. They are not a fan of Assad or the rebels/ISIS, the Kurds or anyone else fighting. I believe the people are the only innocents here.
The gas attacks so seem conspicuous to achieve the means of the US. But the civil war began way before the attack. I wonder what triggered the US to be involved? Oil?
Oil? NO!
Its been a while since the US has depended on oil from the middle east !
Its more about trying to stop the spread of islamic fundamentalism !
Problem is.... its gets complicated when you mix conflicting interests such as Assad , Iran, and ISIS !
Also .... Obama had to try and fix his screw up that resulted from pulling out of Iraq prematurely, something that was in itself the biggest contribution for the rise of ISIS !
People getting caught in the middle is tragic .....but unfortunately nothing new !
Or it gets complicated when you have the former CEO of Exxon Mobil as our foreign secretary. Whose former company was hit by the sanctions the US imposed on Russia and the oil it was after in the Artic. The sanctions that the US lifted as soon as Trump was in office.
Not to mention Trumps head of defence Mattis is a share holder and board member of General Dynamics and all the defence contractors shares jumped as soon as Trump was elected.
No sireee no connection at all
-Matt
So.... its only Americas fault or problem , or bad intervention from the time Trump took office ?
How fanatical, biased and dishonest can you be?
Oooops forgot to add superficial !
You think it has been a problem only since Trump took office? A very deluded viewpoint, Tony. Perhaps look a bit further back.
-Matt
Lol.... either you are distracted or trying to confuse things...or both !
If you actually read what I wrote, you would notice I said no such thing ! Quite the opposite!
"So.... its only Americas fault or problem , or bad intervention from the time Trump took office ? "
Did you miss the question mark at the end ???
So ... funny enough , and in spite of your misinterpretation of my view , its seems we are in agreement ! "
So if you agree with me, why call me 'dishonest' then? I mean, even if you didn't agree with me, calling someone 'dishonest' just because you don't agree with their viewpoint is a bit Trump-y.
-Matt |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *onyxptMan
over a year ago
st neots, living in Albufeira-Algarve-Portugal |
"I'm working with Syrian refugees in my volunteering. They are not a fan of Assad or the rebels/ISIS, the Kurds or anyone else fighting. I believe the people are the only innocents here.
The gas attacks so seem conspicuous to achieve the means of the US. But the civil war began way before the attack. I wonder what triggered the US to be involved? Oil?
Oil? NO!
Its been a while since the US has depended on oil from the middle east !
Its more about trying to stop the spread of islamic fundamentalism !
Problem is.... its gets complicated when you mix conflicting interests such as Assad , Iran, and ISIS !
Also .... Obama had to try and fix his screw up that resulted from pulling out of Iraq prematurely, something that was in itself the biggest contribution for the rise of ISIS !
People getting caught in the middle is tragic .....but unfortunately nothing new !
In a roundabout way yes they do, if you look at volumes imported & exported the US gets a lot of oil from Canada, surprisingly so much oil they in turn need to import a shed load. Guess where it comes from? Saying they are not reliant on Middle Eastern oil is rubbish as if Middle East oil didn't exist the Canadians wouldn't sell what they have.
Its just a sop to please the masses & if the desert oil stopped flowing everyone would soon know about it no matter who (on the surface) they said they bought it from.
S"
Well...actually you partly proving my point !
The fact they can, and do get oil from Canada , proves they don't need it from the middle east !
Fact is , its Europe and Asia that are dependant on middle east oil , not the US !
They have for some time now got it from other sources, like domestic , Canada, Mexico, Central Africa, Angola, Brazil !
Why do you think the price of oil went down ?
Because US demand from the gulf is almost none existent!
The problem with gulf oil for the US is transport cost !
Its too expensive to transport from so far away , when you can get it closer to home !
Currently only about 25 % of petroleum products consumed in the US comes from foreign sources ! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *onyxptMan
over a year ago
st neots, living in Albufeira-Algarve-Portugal |
"I'm working with Syrian refugees in my volunteering. They are not a fan of Assad or the rebels/ISIS, the Kurds or anyone else fighting. I believe the people are the only innocents here.
The gas attacks so seem conspicuous to achieve the means of the US. But the civil war began way before the attack. I wonder what triggered the US to be involved? Oil?
Oil? NO!
Its been a while since the US has depended on oil from the middle east !
Its more about trying to stop the spread of islamic fundamentalism !
Problem is.... its gets complicated when you mix conflicting interests such as Assad , Iran, and ISIS !
Also .... Obama had to try and fix his screw up that resulted from pulling out of Iraq prematurely, something that was in itself the biggest contribution for the rise of ISIS !
People getting caught in the middle is tragic .....but unfortunately nothing new !
Or it gets complicated when you have the former CEO of Exxon Mobil as our foreign secretary. Whose former company was hit by the sanctions the US imposed on Russia and the oil it was after in the Artic. The sanctions that the US lifted as soon as Trump was in office.
Not to mention Trumps head of defence Mattis is a share holder and board member of General Dynamics and all the defence contractors shares jumped as soon as Trump was elected.
No sireee no connection at all
-Matt
So.... its only Americas fault or problem , or bad intervention from the time Trump took office ?
How fanatical, biased and dishonest can you be?
Oooops forgot to add superficial !
You think it has been a problem only since Trump took office? A very deluded viewpoint, Tony. Perhaps look a bit further back.
-Matt
Lol.... either you are distracted or trying to confuse things...or both !
If you actually read what I wrote, you would notice I said no such thing ! Quite the opposite!
"So.... its only Americas fault or problem , or bad intervention from the time Trump took office ? "
Did you miss the question mark at the end ???
So ... funny enough , and in spite of your misinterpretation of my view , its seems we are in agreement !
So if you agree with me, why call me 'dishonest' then? I mean, even if you didn't agree with me, calling someone 'dishonest' just because you don't agree with their viewpoint is a bit Trump-y.
-Matt"
The dishonesty label comes from the fact that your post was not clear, and implied that its all related to Trump taking office , with no reference to past Obama admin causes except for the sanctions!
" Or it gets complicated when you have the former CEO of Exxon Mobil as our foreign secretary. Whose former company was hit by the sanctions the US imposed on Russia and the oil it was after in the Artic. The sanctions that the US lifted as soon as Trump was in office.
Not to mention Trumps head of defence Mattis is a share holder and board member of General Dynamics and all the defence contractors shares jumped as soon as Trump was elected.
No sireee no connection at all"
No mention to the past responsibility here! Is there ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oi_LucyCouple
over a year ago
Barbados |
"I'm working with Syrian refugees in my volunteering. They are not a fan of Assad or the rebels/ISIS, the Kurds or anyone else fighting. I believe the people are the only innocents here.
The gas attacks so seem conspicuous to achieve the means of the US. But the civil war began way before the attack. I wonder what triggered the US to be involved? Oil?
Oil? NO!
Its been a while since the US has depended on oil from the middle east !
Its more about trying to stop the spread of islamic fundamentalism !
Problem is.... its gets complicated when you mix conflicting interests such as Assad , Iran, and ISIS !
Also .... Obama had to try and fix his screw up that resulted from pulling out of Iraq prematurely, something that was in itself the biggest contribution for the rise of ISIS !
People getting caught in the middle is tragic .....but unfortunately nothing new !
Or it gets complicated when you have the former CEO of Exxon Mobil as our foreign secretary. Whose former company was hit by the sanctions the US imposed on Russia and the oil it was after in the Artic. The sanctions that the US lifted as soon as Trump was in office.
Not to mention Trumps head of defence Mattis is a share holder and board member of General Dynamics and all the defence contractors shares jumped as soon as Trump was elected.
No sireee no connection at all
-Matt
So.... its only Americas fault or problem , or bad intervention from the time Trump took office ?
How fanatical, biased and dishonest can you be?
Oooops forgot to add superficial !
You think it has been a problem only since Trump took office? A very deluded viewpoint, Tony. Perhaps look a bit further back.
-Matt
Lol.... either you are distracted or trying to confuse things...or both !
If you actually read what I wrote, you would notice I said no such thing ! Quite the opposite!
"So.... its only Americas fault or problem , or bad intervention from the time Trump took office ? "
Did you miss the question mark at the end ???
So ... funny enough , and in spite of your misinterpretation of my view , its seems we are in agreement !
So if you agree with me, why call me 'dishonest' then? I mean, even if you didn't agree with me, calling someone 'dishonest' just because you don't agree with their viewpoint is a bit Trump-y.
-Matt
The dishonesty label comes from the fact that your post was not clear, and implied that its all related to Trump taking office , with no reference to past Obama admin causes except for the sanctions!
" Or it gets complicated when you have the former CEO of Exxon Mobil as our foreign secretary. Whose former company was hit by the sanctions the US imposed on Russia and the oil it was after in the Artic. The sanctions that the US lifted as soon as Trump was in office.
Not to mention Trumps head of defence Mattis is a share holder and board member of General Dynamics and all the defence contractors shares jumped as soon as Trump was elected.
No sireee no connection at all"
No mention to the past responsibility here! Is there ? "
No, no mention of past responsibility as I wasn't talking about Obama or the whole situation. I was merely pointing out that the current conflicts of interests will complicate matters. Why do you have such a problem with that? I really do find it strange that any time someone adds something to a discussion on here with a viewpoint that is different to yours (or apparently you agree with, it seems now) you call them 'dishonest'. I do find it a very strange approach, personally.
-Matt |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *onyxptMan
over a year ago
st neots, living in Albufeira-Algarve-Portugal |
"I'm working with Syrian refugees in my volunteering. They are not a fan of Assad or the rebels/ISIS, the Kurds or anyone else fighting. I believe the people are the only innocents here.
The gas attacks so seem conspicuous to achieve the means of the US. But the civil war began way before the attack. I wonder what triggered the US to be involved? Oil?
Oil? NO!
Its been a while since the US has depended on oil from the middle east !
Its more about trying to stop the spread of islamic fundamentalism !
Problem is.... its gets complicated when you mix conflicting interests such as Assad , Iran, and ISIS !
Also .... Obama had to try and fix his screw up that resulted from pulling out of Iraq prematurely, something that was in itself the biggest contribution for the rise of ISIS !
People getting caught in the middle is tragic .....but unfortunately nothing new !
Or it gets complicated when you have the former CEO of Exxon Mobil as our foreign secretary. Whose former company was hit by the sanctions the US imposed on Russia and the oil it was after in the Artic. The sanctions that the US lifted as soon as Trump was in office.
Not to mention Trumps head of defence Mattis is a share holder and board member of General Dynamics and all the defence contractors shares jumped as soon as Trump was elected.
No sireee no connection at all
-Matt
So.... its only Americas fault or problem , or bad intervention from the time Trump took office ?
How fanatical, biased and dishonest can you be?
Oooops forgot to add superficial !
You think it has been a problem only since Trump took office? A very deluded viewpoint, Tony. Perhaps look a bit further back.
-Matt
Lol.... either you are distracted or trying to confuse things...or both !
If you actually read what I wrote, you would notice I said no such thing ! Quite the opposite!
"So.... its only Americas fault or problem , or bad intervention from the time Trump took office ? "
Did you miss the question mark at the end ???
So ... funny enough , and in spite of your misinterpretation of my view , its seems we are in agreement !
So if you agree with me, why call me 'dishonest' then? I mean, even if you didn't agree with me, calling someone 'dishonest' just because you don't agree with their viewpoint is a bit Trump-y.
-Matt
The dishonesty label comes from the fact that your post was not clear, and implied that its all related to Trump taking office , with no reference to past Obama admin causes except for the sanctions!
" Or it gets complicated when you have the former CEO of Exxon Mobil as our foreign secretary. Whose former company was hit by the sanctions the US imposed on Russia and the oil it was after in the Artic. The sanctions that the US lifted as soon as Trump was in office.
Not to mention Trumps head of defence Mattis is a share holder and board member of General Dynamics and all the defence contractors shares jumped as soon as Trump was elected.
No sireee no connection at all"
No mention to the past responsibility here! Is there ?
No, no mention of past responsibility as I wasn't talking about Obama or the whole situation. I was merely pointing out that the current conflicts of interests will complicate matters. Why do you have such a problem with that? I really do find it strange that any time someone adds something to a discussion on here with a viewpoint that is different to yours (or apparently you agree with, it seems now) you call them 'dishonest'. I do find it a very strange approach, personally.
-Matt"
That is untrue !
I respect personal opinions whether they coincide with mine , or not !
I do take exception when people conveniently ignore facts , or confuse facts with opinions !
For any debate to be fruitful one has to be open to different ideas ,as long as they are backed by facts , not personal or political bias , that sometimes borders on fanatical ! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I'm working with Syrian refugees in my volunteering. They are not a fan of Assad or the rebels/ISIS, the Kurds or anyone else fighting. I believe the people are the only innocents here.
The gas attacks so seem conspicuous to achieve the means of the US. But the civil war began way before the attack. I wonder what triggered the US to be involved? Oil?"
.
Not oil but close.
Natural gas from Qatar, they want to pipe it to the EU and the pipeline goes right through Syria, of course the Russians arent keen on that idea as they sell there gas to the EU and nobody likes competition in a capitalist society!.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The chemical weapons belonged to Assad and his miltary.They obviously weren't in secure location and were stolen.Assad is responsible for the bombing of the weapons and is responsible for allowing them to get into rebel hands.The alternative is he ordered a chemical attack.Either way he is responsible. "
.
Bit of a story just came my way that made me think of your statement.
Just after 911 there was a series of anthrax letter attacks in the US, basically several letters which contained? anthrax were posted to various political officials who coincidentally opposed the new home defense bill, these letters were tagged with death to Israel, death to the USA type messages and Colin Powell turned up at the UN with this vile of anthrax saying they KNEW Saddam had anthrax labs that he was responsible, all along with tony Blairs sexed up 45 minute missile threat was the precursor to the Iraq invasion.
Anyhow awhile later it turns out it wasnt Saddam, it turns out the anthrax was a special type made in us military labs only and they pinned it on this guy who worked there.
Anyhow years later this guy finally clears his name and is paid out millions of dollars in compensation for basically ruining his life and so the authorities then pin it on one of his co workers, he kills himself and nothing more is said until recently, where a senior FBI investigator is now sueing the FBI for hiding and omitting evidence that this guy that killed himself was actually innocent?. Who'd have guessed hey .
Anyhow the best outcome is that the anthrax letter terrorists are still lose, they used USA military made anthrax to kill people, five postmen actually died from the exposure! The worst outcome is that the US government were actually complicit in this campaign, but at very least in your words, they are responsible for it.
Now my question is, where do we aim the 59 cruise missiles, should we target just US military bases that will stop them from replicating this biological attack again, or do we also target maybe CIAs headquarters at Langley? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
S