Chemical weapon used on civilians in Syria + Airstrikes

mulbot

cnocbui wrote: »

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

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

Tigerbaby

Cnocbu
Jordan, ha ha !

oh you mean Israel's near-abroad?

Educate yourself man.

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

Learn. Grow.

cnocbui

mulbot wrote: »

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

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

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

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

cnocbui

Tigerbaby wrote: »

Cnocbu
Jordan, ha ha !

oh you mean Israel's near-abroad?

Educate yourself man.

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

Learn. Grow.

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

mulbot

cnocbui wrote: »

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

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

From the report 12th-19th oct 2016

cnocbui

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

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

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

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

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

Why am I not surprised?

mcmoustache

cnocbui wrote: »

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

Why am I not surprised?

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

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

Gatling

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

Comical but absolutely true .

Just shows some people will believe any old nonsense

Franz Von Peppercorn

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

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

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

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

Later...

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

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

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

Gatling

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

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

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

Misinformation and lies being spread by useful idiots,

RebelButtMunch

Gatling wrote: »

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

Comical but absolutely true .

Just shows some people will believe any old nonsense

Madness Ted.

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

Dr Brown

Its an obvious false flag.

nacho libre

Aegir wrote: »

no idea, maybe.

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

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

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

Gatling

Dr Brown wrote: »

Its an obvious false flag.

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

Dr Brown

Gatling wrote: »

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

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

WinnyThePoo

Dr Brown wrote: »

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

yawn.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Gatling wrote: »

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

Misinformation and lies being spread by useful idiots,

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

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

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

Gatling

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

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

Lol welcome to democracy and freedom .

It's not Moscow and it never will be .


Have to say made me laugh thought


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

Franz Von Peppercorn

Gatling wrote: »

Lol welcome to democracy and freedom .

It's not Moscow and it never will be .


Have to say made me laugh thought


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

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

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

Talking of Jingo:

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

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

WinnyThePoo

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

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

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

Talking of Jingo:

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

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

Bigger yawn.

Dr Brown

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

yawn.

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

Gatling

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

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

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

Welcome to Ireland and the European union

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

WinnyThePoo

Dr Brown wrote: »

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

Your not following this at all. Are you?

cnocbui

Dr Brown wrote: »

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

it's what they do.

Franz Von Peppercorn

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

(Let’s leave it to the head choppers)

HUZZAH! HUZZAH!

Gatling

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

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

They got the missles alright .

Right up their arses .


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

Franz Von Peppercorn

Gatling wrote: »

They got the missles alright .

Right up their arses .


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

HUZZAH!

RebelButtMunch

cnocbui wrote: »

it's what they do.

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

D.ream. things can only get better

mulbot

Gatling wrote: »

They got the missles alright .

Right up their arses .


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

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

Gatling

mulbot wrote: »

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

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

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


Maths for a start seems to be an issue for russia

mulbot

Gatling wrote: »

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

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


Maths for a start seems to be an issue for russia

So over 20 t hawk missiles per site, plus another 50 or so non t hawks divided over 3 sites and we're supposed to believe a few buildings destroyed and some rubble is the result of all that firepower!

Gatling

mulbot wrote: »

So over 20 t hawk missiles per site, plus another 50 or so non t hawks divided over 3 sites and we're supposed to believe a few buildings destroyed and some rubble is the result of all that firepower!

What would you expect

mulbot

Gatling wrote: »

What would you expect

I don't know much about them but I listen to people who do, and have doubted that 20 t hawks on one target did so little damage.

Gatling

mulbot wrote: »

I don't know much about them but I listen to people who do, and have doubted that 20 t hawks on one target did so little damage.

So little damage .


Yeah right ....

Gatling

So it seems the assad regime and russia are claiming they were hit with more UK and American missles from Jordan ,
Strikes hit a airfield in Homs and a weapons store killing at least 26 mainly Iranians , which the regime are Claiming they were Assad troops.
The UK and Americans have said we didn't launch any weapons . Assad say they did

Meanwhile it's highly likely Israel carried out the strikes.
No missles were intercepted or shotdown





https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-43947019

Barry Badrinath

Gatling wrote: »

So it seems the assad regime and russia are claiming they were hit with more UK and American missles from Jordan ,
Strikes hit a airfield in Homs and a weapons store killing at least 26 mainly Iranians , which the regime are Claiming they were Assad troops.
The UK and Americans have said we didn't launch any weapons . Assad say they did

Meanwhile it's highly likely Israel carried out the strikes.
No missles were intercepted or shotdown

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-43947019

Where is the statement from Assad and Russia in that link?

It was a Syrian newspaper who brought the US/UK theory to the table. No doubt an assumption due to the previous coalition missile strike and the Syr offensive in Deir ez-Zor yesterday....2+2= bull****.

I agree that it looks like the Israelis. Especially since there are reports that Iranian heavy lift cargo aircraft had been in Hama before the explosion.

Hande hoche!

That seems about right. Too much good news coming out of the Korean peninsula, now seems like the time for more flames in the Middle East.

BalcombeSt4

Gatling wrote: »

Remind us how that happened

How what happened? How America killed at least a million civilians & were seriously thinkking about using a Atomic Bomb?

Well America played the fear card at home greatly like they always doing.

skepticalme

Are you talking about the Israeli strike that measured 2.6 on the richter scale. The US confirmed it was Israel.

BalcombeSt4

nacho libre wrote: »

It's not necessarily always about control of resources, it's to ensure hegemony- specifically to ensure the dollar is the reserve currency. I don't know about pipelines in Syria being the reason this time, but i know that it's very unlikely to be genuine concern about civilians dying. If it were we'd have seen interventions in the Congo and in places like Iraq in the 80s where chemical weapons were being used against civilians and Iranian soliders, but the west didn't do so because it did not suit the stratgetic interest at the time.

Yeah I agree with that.
It's one of the reasons they removed Gaddafi from power & divided the country into a four piece disaster.
If they were "intervening" for humane reasons they would have intervened in Latin America (or the backdoor "****hole as Richard Nixon called it) as through out the 60's - 90's most countries in South & Centeral America as were under the control of either Fascist Dictators or Military Juntas, whose death squads were trained at the "School of the America's" in the US state of Georgia.
People all overt the world seen the the massacre at the funeral of Archbishop Romero who was assassinated in a church hospital by the El Salvadorian military. In the same country in 1980 four Catholic nuns from the United States were raped & murderedby the El Salvador National Guard. Jimmy Carter who now is suppose to be this great man of peace & justice suspened aid to the regime but a few weeks later reinstated the aid.
Reagan was even worse with his support for the Fascist Juntas in Latin America, a Human Rights Watch report said

During the Reagan years in particular, not only did the United States fail to press for improvements … but, in an effort to maintain backing for U.S. policy, it misrepresented the record of the Salvadoran government, and smeared critics who challenged that record. In so doing, the Administration needlessly polarized the debate in the United States, and did a grave injustice to the thousands of civilian victims of government terror in El Salvador. Despite the El MozoteMassacre that year, Reagan continued certifying (per the 1974 amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act) that the Salvadoran government was progressing in respecting and guaranteeing the human rights of its people, and in reducing National Guard abuses against them.

In Guatemala the Junta carried out a genocide against the native Mayan people.

In Nicaragua the US supported & trained the far-right Contra rebels who committed numerous war crimes during the the civil war from 79 - 90 & the Reagan regime actively encouraged the Contras to carry out terrorist attacks & target civilians.
Human Rights Watch accused the Contras of:

targeting health care clinics and health care workers for assassination

kidnapping civilianstorturing civilians
executing civilians, including children, who were captured in combat
raping women
indiscriminately attacking civilians and civilian houses
seizing civilian property
burning civilian houses in captured towns.

In his affidavit to the World Court, former contra Edgar Chamorro testified that:

"The CIA did not discourage such tactics. To the contrary, the Agency severely criticized me when I admitted to the press that the FDN had regularly kidnapped and executed agrarian reform workers and civilians. We were told that the only way to defeat the Sandinistas was to...kill, kidnap, rob and torture..."

In Argentina during the "Dirty War" the Junta there threw thousands of opponents out of planes & into the ocean.

In Honduras a state terrorist group called "Battalion 3-16" which was also trained by the CIA carried out political killings, killings of civilians, massacres & tortured prisoners.

These regimes at the least were just as bad as Saddam Hussien and in some cases possibly worse. So why is intervention okay in Iraq but not for some of the closet countries to you, I'm sure most people living in these countries would have loved it if the US removed some of these Fascist scum from power. And up until the 1990's the US loved the Saddam regime, when he started disobeying their orders that's when the war propaganda against the people of Iraq started.
Same with Noriega, the drug kingpin in Panama, when he started to become too much trouble the US got rid of him. Ironically they actually publically regarded Noriega as an ally on the "War on Drugs".

cnocbui

BalcombeSt4 wrote: »

Yeah I agree with that.
It's one of the reasons they removed Gaddafi from power & divided the country into a four piece disaster.
If they were "intervening" for humane reasons they would have intervened in Latin America ...

But what about the Conquistadors?

BalcombeSt4

cnocbui wrote: »

But what about the Conquistadors?

Their the reason so many natives were wiped out.

skepticalme

Israeli Russian meeting broke down today. Israel attacking Syria again tonight except this time Russian jets are up. Going to be an interesting night.

skepticalme

Israel attacked Syrian army tonight, Syria has retaliated. Looks like Netenyahu has given up pretending it was Iran he was targetting. Now Israel will as usual play the victim and say Israel was attacked.

Gatling

skepticalme wrote: »

Israel

Is that the you cheerful

TheValeyard

It all depends on the Iranian response now. Next two nights will be interesting

Gatling

Murray TheDemonic TalkingSkull wrote: »

It all depends on the Iranian response now. Next two nights will be interesting

Not a whole lot they can do lob a few missles back at Israel ,
Israel retailiates with bigger and more strikes assad starts losing ground due to Iranian loses and around they go again ,
Unless Israel starts a sudden build up on the Golan heights which would likely see incursions to remove the Iranians in Syria

nacho libre

Gatling wrote: »

Unless Israel starts a sudden build up on the Golan heights which would likely see incursions to remove the Iranians in Syria

Thats's not going to happen.
Your Israeli friends can't be too pleased with the election results in Lebanon. I don't think they'll start a war over it, though. Also with Hezbollah heavily involved in Syria they are probably not keen on doing Iran's bidding by risking another war with Israel. Meanwhile the Russians give Israel tacit admission to conduct these raid in Syria. They will not want things to escalate to a point where Russian solider are caught in the cross fire. You might not like to admit it but the Russians and Israelis have good relations.
I see this situation de-escalating for now.

Gatling

nacho libre wrote: »

Thats's not going to happen.
Your Israeli friends

Not my friends but hey what can you do .

Israel Will Keep hitting targets in Syria as they have done for the last 7 years regardless of what russia or anyone else says

nacho libre

Gatling wrote: »

Not my friends but hey what can you do .

Israel Will Keep hitting targets in Syria as they have done for the last 7 years regardless of what russia or anyone else says

They seem to be, as they can do no wrong in your eyes;)

Russia, as i said, has given them tacit admission to strike targets in Syria, as long as Russian personnel are not hit. Isarel warned Russia of the latest strikes before hand. Russia does not see its own and Iran's regional interests as necessarily intertwined.