Chemical weapon used on civilians in Syria + Airstrikes

gandalf

Gringo180 wrote: »

Jaysus lad. America does the exact same and worse ffs. Take your head out of your hole will you. Why should we trust the war mongering republican party who are the biggest terrorists on the planet and the biggest threat to the human race.

Again you and others are not reading what I say. I see the Russians as the bigger threat, I never said the US were angels now did I. However in a simplified world view if you criticise one side it automatically means you support the other perceived side in that simplified world view. You really need to expand your horizons.

gandalf

Gringo180 wrote: »

Theres a huge chance you would be speaking German only for the Russians. How many of there men bled and perished on the battle field in there fight against the Nazi's? They suffered the biggest losses in WW2.

They also collaborated with the nazis in kicking off WW2 when they carved up Poland.

gandalf

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Have debunked all your crap before I only am repeating myself on here.

You have debunked nothing, all you are capable of is spewing propaganda and tainted YouTube videos.

Oh you are right about one thing all you do is repeat your lies Ad nauseam all over this and other threads.

Cheerful Spring

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

Do you really think Trump is completely in control? Recently he said that the US was pulling out of Syria and hey presto, a "gas attack" happens a few days later and missiles are falling on Syria.
A year ago Trump said Assad had a future as President of Syria and guess what? A "gas attack" happens a few days later at Khan Sheikoun and missiles are falling on Syria.
At least we know who's fully in control in Russia.

If Mattis is shoved to the side or dismissed we are ****ed there is nobody to stop the madness. It known now Nikki Haley and John Bolton and Trump wanted to go further and escalate in Syria. Mattis and Dunford did not they got their way in the end. Pompeo has no say yet because he still going through the process of becoming secretary of state.

The neocons are not there yet to fully take over the White House, but we getting there.

Gringo180

gandalf wrote: »

Again you and others are not reading what I say. I see the Russians as the bigger threat, I never said the US were angels now did I. However in a simplified world view if you criticise one side it automatically means you support the other perceived side in that simplified world view. You really need to expand your horizons.

Its the double standards of the West that kills me. I would support ousting Assad if they were going to be consistent about things, like taking out the house of Saud and slapping the Israeli's into a bit of sense. When the west does the bombing its counter terrorism but when the Arabs fight back its terrorism. Pull the other one.

Gringo180

gandalf wrote: »

They also collaborated with the nazis in kicking off WW2 when they carved up Poland.

Every single super power in human history did the same. The Brits and Americans carved up the middle east and suppressed Arab nationalism because they perceived it a threat, they never wanted a stable, vibrant and modern middle east because they couldnt rape there oil resources, instead they backed despots to rule over the people with an iron fist, despots who were best friends with the Americans. They would pick the Jihadis over a democracy in the middle east every day of the week.

Cheerful Spring

gandalf wrote: »

Again you and others are not reading what I say. I see the Russians as the bigger threat, I never said the US were angels now did I. However in a simplified world view if you criticise one side it automatically means you support the other perceived side in that simplified world view. You really need to expand your horizons.

You never talk about that threat so why should we listen to you? Russia clearly has its own interests in Syria and they are supporting Assad who did rule with an iron fist in the past. Still pick your poison who better for Syria jihadists or Assad? Syria was a secular state and well off by middle east standards and people were not hungry. Grievances were being addressed by Assad, but the armed gangs decided to destroy Syria instead.

gandalf

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Grievances were being addressed by Assad

LOL it's the way he dealt with the grievances that kicked the whole crisis in Syria off.

Gatling

gandalf wrote: »

LOL it's the way he dealt with the grievances that kicked the whole crisis in Syria off.

Wait he claimed the FSA started off the war backed by unknown Shadows apparently

mcmoustache

Gringo180 wrote: »

Just wondering did we expel any Israeli diplomats when they used forged Irish passports to murder a senior Palestinian official in Dubai a few years ago?

It would be a disgrace if we didn't. Thankfully we did. We should be expelling them more regularly, in my opinion, but Israel has some powerful friends, unfortunately. This is one of the problems with International politics - you can get away with a lot if you're powerful or have powerful friends but if you don't, you can be punished.

It's a playground, basically.

gandalf

Gatling wrote: »

Wait he claimed the FSA started off the war backed by unknown Shadows apparently

Yeah wait for it coupled with a snazzy YouTube video, you need that for a good bit of propaganda spewing.

Cheerful Spring

Gringo180 wrote: »

Every single super power in human history did the same. The Brits and Americans carved up the middle east and suppressed Arab nationalism because they perceived it a threat, they never wanted a stable, vibrant and modern middle east because they couldnt rape there oil resources, instead they backed despots to rule over the people with an iron fist, despots who were best friends with the Americans. They would pick the Jihadis over a democracy in the middle east every day of the week.

The coup in Iran in 1953 is an example of this. Iran in 1953 was a democratic country when the leader wanted to nationalise the oil for Iranian people. The British intelligence services and the CIA planned to set in motion a coup to overthrow the democratically elected government there and they succeeded. The West continued meddling later caused the 1979 revolution in Iran. Some People don't what to believe this because it's not what we are thought in school and by our media but this is the truth. We are in the Middle East to take resources, the real motivation for intervention, and millions of dead in the middle east is irrelevant

Gatling

gandalf wrote: »

Yeah wait for it coupled with a snazzy YouTube video, you need that for a good bit of propaganda spewing.

All which will be throurly Debunked like all the other ****e Claimed

gandalf

Gatling wrote: »

All which will be throurly Debunked like all the other ****e Claimed

And that individual will claim to have debunked that even though they couldn't debunk their way out of a paper bag.

Cheerful Spring

Gatling wrote: »

Wait he claimed the FSA started off the war backed by unknown Shadows apparently

Assad blocked a pipeline through Syria in 2009, going against Western interests ( he placed a target on his back after that) We know because of WikiLeaks the CIA in 2011 were inside Syria just before the protests started and were organising opposition groups. So we know for a fact the protests were not reactions to an event or number of events. I don't dispute some Syrians had grievances and were involved in the protests, but those protests were small and localised to a few places in Syria. There is still no evidence even today this was a major uprising against Assad rule. Syrian Free Army was backed by foreign governments, not the Syrian people.

Gatling

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Assad

Sent in the army and airforce to massacre his own civilian population ....

Anything else is keyboard diorrea .

mbur

There is a very large discrepancy between the Russian Ministry of Defense report of strike and the description in the Pentagon briefing on the strike. According to the Pentagon only three places related to non-existing Syrian chemical weapons were targeted:

This combined military strike was directed against three distinct Syrian chemical weapons program targets.
...
In summary, in a powerful show of allied unity, we deployed 105 weapons against three targets.

It does not make any sense to send 35 cruise missiles against each of those not hardened, not defended targets like the now destroyed Barzeh research center which was a small two story building complex (pic of destruction) and had been declared free of chemical weapons and weapon research by the OPCW. Why would the U.S. military use such a high number of precision weapons against only three targets? This is extremely unusual and does not make sense at all.

The Russians, as well as other sources on the ground, report in detail of many more targets:

Four missiles targeted the Damascus International Airport; 12 missiles – the Al-Dumayr airdrome, all the missiles have been shot down.

18 missiles targeted the Blai airdrome, all the missiles shot down.

12 missiles targeted the Shayrat air base, all the missiles shot down. Air bases were not affected by the strike.

Five out of nine missiles were shot down targeting the unoccupied Mazzeh airdrome.

Thirteen out of sixteen missiles were shot down targeting the Homs airdrome. There are no heavy destructions.

In total 30 missiles targeted facilities near Barzah and Jaramana. Seven of them have been shot down.

At least six airports were targeted according to the Russian report. The Pentagon reports no strike on Syrian airports but claims to have launched a way too high number of cruise missiles for each of the claimed three target. The Syrian opposition outlet SOHR reports of eight targets and says that at least 65 of the cruise missiles were downed by the Syrian air defenses. The Russians say 71 were shot down while the Pentagon says none of its cruise missiles were hit.

At least three other sources confirm the Russian version of events. The Pentagon is lying. The attack was a U.S. attempt to disable the Syrian air force by destroying its airports. It failed and the Pentagon is hiding that failure. Will the U.S. media report this discrepancy?
link

Gringo180

Hypocrites

Cheerful Spring

Gatling wrote: »

Sent in the army and airforce to massacre his own civilian population ....

Anything else is keyboard diorrea .

You realise there was an election in Syria in 2014? And 6 million people marched in support of him in Damascus? And a poll was done by the Turks and they found only 10 percent of the population wanted violence?

Gatling

mbur wrote: »

There is a very large discrepancy between the Russian Ministry of Defense report of strike

The Russians, as well as other sources on the ground, report in detail of many more targets:
At least six airports were targeted according to the Russian report. T The Russians say 71 were shot down while the Pentagon says none of its cruise missiles were hit

At least three other sources confirm the Russian version of events. The Pentagon is lying

The Russians lying it's that simple ...

Wonder why we've seen ZERO evidence of Russian claims.


Next

ArchXStanton

mbur wrote: »

There is a very large discrepancy between the Russian Ministry of Defense report of strike and the description in the Pentagon briefing on the strike. According to the Pentagon only three places related to non-existing Syrian chemical weapons were targeted:



It does not make any sense to send 35 cruise missiles against each of those not hardened, not defended targets like the now destroyed Barzeh research center which was a small two story building complex (pic of destruction) and had been declared free of chemical weapons and weapon research by the OPCW. Why would the U.S. military use such a high number of precision weapons against only three targets? This is extremely unusual and does not make sense at all.

The Russians, as well as other sources on the ground, report in detail of many more targets:
At least six airports were targeted according to the Russian report. The Pentagon reports no strike on Syrian airports but claims to have launched a way too high number of cruise missiles for each of the claimed three target. The Syrian opposition outlet SOHR reports of eight targets and says that at least 65 of the cruise missiles were downed by the Syrian air defenses. The Russians say 71 were shot down while the Pentagon says none of its cruise missiles were hit.

At least three other sources confirm the Russian version of events. The Pentagon is lying. The attack was a U.S. attempt to disable the Syrian air force by destroying its airports. It failed and the Pentagon is hiding that failure. Will the U.S. media report this discrepancy?
link

Did you see the pentagon trying to answer some tough questions from journalists?

gandalf

Christ we're back to blog links and bullsh!t!

Gatling

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You realise there was an election in Syria in 2014

The one russia said happened and assad won 150% of the vote .


More crap

Cheerful Spring

mbur wrote: »

There is a very large discrepancy between the Russian Ministry of Defense report of strike and the description in the Pentagon briefing on the strike. According to the Pentagon only three places related to non-existing Syrian chemical weapons were targeted:



It does not make any sense to send 35 cruise missiles against each of those not hardened, not defended targets like the now destroyed Barzeh research center which was a small two story building complex (pic of destruction) and had been declared free of chemical weapons and weapon research by the OPCW. Why would the U.S. military use such a high number of precision weapons against only three targets? This is extremely unusual and does not make sense at all.

The Russians, as well as other sources on the ground, report in detail of many more targets:
At least six airports were targeted according to the Russian report. The Pentagon reports no strike on Syrian airports but claims to have launched a way too high number of cruise missiles for each of the claimed three target. The Syrian opposition outlet SOHR reports of eight targets and says that at least 65 of the cruise missiles were downed by the Syrian air defenses. The Russians say 71 were shot down while the Pentagon says none of its cruise missiles were hit.

At least three other sources confirm the Russian version of events. The Pentagon is lying. The attack was a U.S. attempt to disable the Syrian air force by destroying its airports. It failed and the Pentagon is hiding that failure. Will the U.S. media report this discrepancy?
link

I noticed this the other day too. Your breakdown of it was better though well done!

Gatling

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I noticed this the other day too. Your breakdown of it was better though well done!

Pull the other one .


Anyone who's willing to post utter tripe you support

Cheerful Spring

gandalf wrote: »

Christ we're back to blog links and bullsh!t!

I doubt you or the Western media will fact-check that info to see if it accurate?

gandalf

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I doubt you or the Western media will fact-check that info to see if it accurate?

I definitely know you won't.

Cheerful Spring

ArchXStanton wrote: »

Did you see the pentagon trying to answer some tough questions from journalists?

I noticed this yesterday myself and delighted other sources are talking about it now. Using 100+ cruise missiles to take out just 3 sites is clearly bull****. But you can see even with people on here they lack basic common sense and logic do schools teach this anymore?

Discodog

ArchXStanton wrote: »

Did you see the pentagon trying to answer some tough questions from journalists?

Russia always answers questions & would never kill a journalist :rolleyes: Trump is an idiot & potentially a dangerous idiot but a thing called democracy keeps him in check. Putin is also dangerous & possible equally deranged but he is in sole charge.

I know which I prefer.

Billy86

gandalf wrote: »

I definitely know you won't.

That's a bit harsh, I'm sure they will. How else will they be able to snip out the bits that don't suit the agenda and intentionally misquote officials with unerring regularity, such as Spiez Lab just earlier today?

Cheerful Spring

Billy86 wrote: »

That's a bit harsh, I'm sure they will. How else will they be able to snip out the bits that don't suit the agenda and intentionally misquote officials with unerring regularity, such as Spiez Lab just earlier today?

Sentences have meaning and you guys are unable to decipher.

Discodog

Billy86 wrote: »

That's a bit harsh, I'm sure they will. How else will they be able to snip out the bits that don't suit the agenda and intentionally misquote officials with unerring regularity, such as Spiez Lab just earlier today?

Amazing how, when they are found out telling absolute blatant lies, they suddenly shut up about their proof.

Cheerful Spring

Discodog wrote: »

Amazing how, when they are found out telling absolute blatant lies, they suddenly shut up about their proof.

I will break it down for you
Only OPCW can comment this assertion (they will not tell us if Larvov was correct) But we can repeat what we stated 10 days ago: We have no doubt that Porton Down has identified Novichock (We not saying we found Novichok or we not going to tell you if Larvov was right) PD - like Spiez - is a designated lab of the OPCW. The standards in verification are so rigid that one can trust the findings. #Skipal

Discodog

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I will break it down for you
Only OPCW can comment this assertion (they will not tell us if Larvov was correct) But we can repeat what we stated 10 days ago: We have no doubt that Porton Down has identified Novichock (We not saying we found Novichok or we not going to tell you if Larvov was right) PD - like Spiez - is a designated lab of the OPCW. The standards in verification are so rigid that one can trust the findings. #Skipal

That's as clear as mud - as usual

Ken.

Mod-Cheerful Spring do not post in this thread again. Reason- Personal abuse and trolling.

Everyone else, please don't reply to C.S. he can't reply.

Elmer Blooker

Gatling wrote: »

All which will be throurly Debunked like all the other ****e Claimed

Anyone who's willing to post utter tripe you support

More crap

Anything else is keyboard diorrea .

Interesting that Cheerful Spring has been told not to post again in this thread and this trolling is tolerated!

Gringo180

Conspectus wrote: »

Mod-Cheerful Spring do not post in this thread again. Reason- Personal abuse and trolling.

Everyone else, please don't reply to C.S. he can't reply.

I dont see much in the way of personal abuse to be honest. These sort of threads get heated but thats what its all about. If you ban him you should be banning others.

Gatling

Gringo180 wrote: »

I dont see much in the way of personal abuse to be honest. These sort of threads get heated but thats what its all about. If you ban him you should be banning others.

None of yours or anyone else's business

Skylinehead

Mod: Leave the modding to the mods. Any more talk will be sanctioned, you know where to go if you have complaints (PM, Help Desk)

Shurimgreat

Gatling wrote: »

Russia are now Claiming they have proof the UK framed them by carrying out and supporting the false chemical weapons attack.


Can russia not stick to one single claim rather than 50 conspiracy theories

The only people who believe the Russian claims are the many Putinistas on here.

defrule

Guys, you are all wrong!

It was aliens! Ancient aliens!

Gringo180

Shurimgreat wrote: »

The only people who believe the Russian claims are the many Putinistas on here.

What are you so? An Americanista? Or is it Trumpinista?

donegaLroad

I am not a Putinist, or whatever you'd like to called it, I am only seeing things as they are.

Syria and Iran have dropped the dollar for trading oil, Russia has also partially done so, and yesterday America has announced that it will be imposing new sanctions on Russia for supporting Syria.

America will be in trouble if it is to impose sanctions on the other countries that are queuing up to drop the petro-dollar. If these countries were to follow through, then the dollar may no longer be a world reserve currency.

mcmoustache

Shurimgreat wrote: »

The only people who believe the Russian claims are the many Putinistas on here.

And to be fair, I'm not sure that they believe those claims either.

nullzero

What's the consensus here?

We're the strikes justified?
Are the Russians the bad guys?
Are officially sanctioned inspections of chemical weapons sites not needed?
Is any evidence needed?

RandomName2

Gatling wrote: »

The Russians lying it's that simple ...

Wonder why we've seen ZERO evidence of Russian claims.


Next

Personally I'd place the burden of evidence for taking a course of action which could potentially trigger war with Russia a bit higher than a video of three children being sprayed by a hose and the use of a Ventolin inhaler.

Not saying there wasn't a chemical attack, I just would want to see evidence of launches, evidence of bodies, evidence that launches came from government forces, ideally some evidence of orders having been given.

The only evidence I've seen so far was a very brief video taken by the Army of Islam. No, that's actually their name. The organisation the head of whom at one stage said that all Shiites and Alawites should be killed.

cnocbui

nullzero wrote: »

What's the consensus here?

We're the strikes justified?
Are the Russians the bad guys?
Are officially sanctioned inspections of chemical weapons sites not needed?
Is any evidence needed?

Yes they were, use of chemical weapons is a no-no. The strikes were very restrained.

Yes the Russians are bad guys. 700,000 dead in syria and 75% unemployment and a terrifying human rights abuse record.

That's the trouble with Russia, they use the ban hammer so frequently it's hard to see it as it's just a blur, so inspections are not a prospect.

It would be nice to be able to get evidence but Russia and Syria prevent access. Nonetheless, evidence has been got for multiple previous instances of chemical weapons use by Syria and the very moderate strikes would be justified for those alone, irrespective of the evidence situation regarding Douma.

Gatling

RandomName2 wrote: »

Personally I'd place the burden of evidence for taking a course of action which could potentially trigger war with Russia a bit higher than a video of three children being sprayed by a hose and the use of a Ventolin inhaler.

Not saying there wasn't a chemical attack, I just would want to see evidence of launches, evidence of bodies, evidence that launches came from government forces, ideally some evidence of orders having been given.

The only evidence I've seen so far was a very brief video taken by the Army of Islam. No, that's actually their name. The organisation the head of whom at one stage said that all Shiites and Alawites should be killed.

Well the world wanted an investigation but russia blocked multiple investigations into chemical weapons attacks in Syria ,
But they will allow an investigation that cannot attribute blame on who ever is found to have committed the attack , but they they want the UNSC to attribute blame ok , but they can and will veto the publication of investigation results meaning the results cannot be published and made public ,

Now we have recently seen a very public OPCW investigation - Salisbury.
Which stated that Novichok was used in an attempted assinations.
Yesterday Sergei lavrov publicly lied about the results of that investigation,he claimed an OPCW laboratory in Switzerland found another chemical nerve agent in the Salisbury samples.
The laboratory in question then made a statement showing the Russian government lied.
So we have the OPCW been publicly discredited by a state who's tried to block the investigations .

There is an investigation ongoing into the last chemical weapons attack is Syria which if it says that the Assad regime is guilty russia will claim set up and false flag .
Leaving any further investigation hobbled .

The action taken was to prevent the further use of chemical weapons in Syria.
No area under investigation was targeted in an attempt to destroy any evidence likely to be found .
This was a very measured repsonse but if the OPCW find the attack came from the Assad regime what then ,
A strongly worded document from the UNSC condeming the attack which will be completely watered down at Moscow's demand .

Franz Von Peppercorn

cnocbui wrote: »

Yes they were, use of chemical weapons is a no-no. The strikes were very restrained.

Yes the Russians are bad guys. 700,000 dead in syria and 75% unemployment and a terrifying human rights abuse record.

You’re blaming the dead in Syria on Russia? Not the radical islamists? Russia didn’t even intervene until fairly late in the day. The US supports the most islamists. The ultimate responsibility for Syria and Iraq lies with the US and it’s poodles. Libya too.

That's the trouble with Russia, they use the ban hammer so frequently it's hard to see it as it's just a blur, so inspections are not a prospect.

It would be nice to be able to get evidence but Russia and Syria prevent access. Nonetheless, evidence has been got for multiple previous instances of chemical weapons use by Syria and the very moderate strikes would be justified for those alone, irrespective of the evidence situation regarding Douma.

The evidence has been destroyed by missile blasts apparently.

Gatling

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

The evidence has been destroyed by missile blasts apparently
.

No evidence was destroyed.

Douma wasn't targeted