Chlorine Gas Attack reported in Aleppo

[Sandydragon]

The fact that he doesn't realise that a front organisation set up by a British army officer in Syria and supported by the Foreign Office is a propaganda tool to spread disinformation against Assad in order to garner support for regime change, is astounding.

Sandy, given your extensive experience in the forces, surely you of all people must admit that truth is the first casualty of war, and that we generally don't go to war for altruistic purposes. You must admit that the very fact that we are focusing on Syria means that there is at the very least a perceived advantage to be gained for us.

(by us/we read UK)

Of course it is, broadly speaking. Which is why i don't rely on one source as a general rule when looking at news.

What I did find interesting when I was serving were reports from places like Iraq and Afghanistan which gave advanced warning of tomorrows news. I tended to trust them a lot more than the revisionist propaganda that was pushed out a day or two later which is blindly accepted as the truth by far too many who want their existing views reinforced.

And of course we don't go to war for altruistic purposes - we go for national interest. Its realpolitik - Ive repeated that enough on this site for most people to pick up on.

Of course, if there is a more destructive conflict ongoing at the moment that is showing huge secondary impact close to home then feel free to highlight it. Syria is getting a lot of interest because its newsworthy.

It's funny how you ignored my first paragraph. Tell us Sandy, why do you trust news sources from conflict sponsor states quoting a front organisation set up by another sponsor state's army officer. Why do you trust such 'news'?

If i used one source then you would have a point. I don't. I trust news once its been verified by a number of outlets. I distrust many bloggers who have a proven track record of making stuff up, based on their previous claims and the proven reality I could witness with my own eyes.

Now this nice little attempt to undermine me has nothing to do with the rebuttal of 'evidence' provided elsewhere which suggests that Assad didn't use Sarin gas. Nice try though.

[Sandydragon]

I looked at the article and gave me view. This could have been achieved with support from NATO et al, obviously. Have you looked at the RT report I posted a link to and refuted all the evidence they present in support of Hersh's findings? & there's a lot more where that came from, so we could play this game all day. That's why I find it useful to reduce most things to the 'cui bono' principle. & after all, this whole thread was started on the basis of an attack that did not even kill a single person. Doesn't that suggest at least a little bit of a biased attitude on the part of the person who started it? No wonder it's had to morph itself into a thread about a nasty incident which occurred three years ago, and which has already been turned inside out by the media, politicians and others ad inifinitum, without any universally accepted conclusion either way . . .

Wow. So because a deadly chemical agent didn't kill anyone, it doesn't matter. And again, drawing attention to the rank hypocrisy that exists towards the deployment of such weapons is perfectly valid thanks. I could question any thread you start for your underlying views, yet I don't as I prefer to address the topic.

[Sandydragon]

I had a look at that report and it relies heavily on the argument that the government had such tight control over the area of Damascus hit that it would not have been possible for anti-government rebels/terrorists to have carried it out. Well, not on their own perhaps, but these anti-government terrorists have the backing of NATO, Saudi, Qatar & Israel, and there isn't a nook or cranny on this planet that those guys aren't capable of infiltrating, and everyone knows it. This also torpedoes the claim that the rebels/terrorists lacked the money and resources to carry off such an attack.

“The reporter does not take into account that multiple sites, not just one, were hit with chemical agents on August 21.”
How does that refute Hersh’s arguments? Were any traces of sarin found at these alleged 'multiple sites?'

Cui bono?

1 - NATO began this proxy war to get rid of Assad, break up the Shia crescent and make way for another puppet regime subservient to Washington's whims. Here was their pretext for a full-scale invasion, WOMDs all over again, and, indeed, they almost bombed Syria as a result of this incident, before overwhelming international opposition dissuaded them.

2 - The Syrian government was hosting UN inspectors at around the same time this incident took place. Had they been found responsible, the international community would have been outraged and America would have gone ahead and bombed them to rubble.

3 - Seymour Hersh is a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist who exposed the My Lai massacre in Vietnam during his youth, and more recently brought to light the Abu Ghraib scandal in Iraq. Had he just been making up a bunch of b/s about Damascus his career and reputation would have gone down the toilet. As it was, both the New Yorker (for whom he was writing at the time) and the Washington Post chose to ignore his findings: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/0 ... 09674.html

RT's take on it: https://www.rt.com/news/325825-sarin-gas-syria-turkey

SO Nato troops helped to orchestrate an artillery barrage right on the doorstep of Syrian government troops, using chemical weapons in a quantity that it would have been virtually impossible to manufacture on an ad hoc basis. Yet one of the reports I provided mentions the GPS locations of the firing points and who was actually controlling the ground at that time.

Do you think, like Hersh seems to, that a terrorist could just mix Sarin in a bath tub? To create the quantities required would need a lot of raw materials (available from where) and facilities to create the end product. Anything less would just kill off the chemists and anyone in the surrounding area.

The Syrian government may have been unaware of the attack - the panicked calls intercepted by the NSA point that could be a feasible explanation. Equally, Assad may have felt the situation desperate enough to use such weapons. The presence of the UN inspectors does not preclude Syrian government involvement.

Hersh is human. But factually he has ignored a good number that don't agree with his version of events. Has it occurred to you that his desire to maintain a relevant, award winning journalist has pushed him into a situation where he has presented a story that isn't fully justified. Perhaps that is why his employers were so reluctant to publish?

Cui bono has it uses but only if there is evidence to back up the argument.

That's just pathetic.

SO, several hours later we still have nothing.

UG has resorted to ad hominem. SO has Kamber.

Rowan tries to change the subject.

None will actually try to discuss the issues raised by various authors which undermine claims of a false flag attack. Yet this is the enlightened element, uninhibited by mainstream propaganda.

Meanwhile,Assad continues to perpetrate war crimes and nothing is said. If it were Israel, this place would be in meltdown.

[Digby]

If it were Israel, this place would be in meltdown.

If meltdown meant a small group of crusty lefties complaining

[Zhivago]

UG has resorted to ad hominem. SO has Kamber.

My argument was against the credibility of your chosen sources of information. How is that ad hominem, pray tell?

[Zhivago]

[Sandydragon]

UG has resorted to ad hominem. SO has Kamber.

My argument was against the credibility of your chosen sources of information. How is that ad hominem, pray tell?

You insinuate that I am believing propaganda blindly. Yet when provided with evidence I appear to be challenging it more robustly than many on here.

The truth s that it took 15 minutes o find the holds in the argument put forward by your mate. Yet, it's people like me who don't blindly accept the left wing bloggers who are so often quoted on here who are led by propaganda.

The fact is that despite being given ample time to provide credible evidence, there is nothing that contradicts the multiple official reports that all blame th Syrian government.

[cashead]

3 - Seymour Hersh is a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist who exposed the My Lai massacre in Vietnam during his youth, and more recently brought to light the Abu Ghraib scandal in Iraq. Had he just been making up a bunch of b/s about Damascus his career and reputation would have gone down the toilet. As it was, both the New Yorker (for whom he was writing at the time) and the Washington Post chose to ignore his findings: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/0 ... 09674.html

The same Seymour Hersh who fell hook line and sinker for the Kennedy document hoax perpetrated by one convicted fraud Larry Cusack and got pilloried for writing a book that was basically a masturbatory fantasy? That Seymour Hersh?

I'm not saying he's a Stephen Glass or an Jayson Blair, but you shouldn't put him on a pedestal and act like every single thing he says or writes is entirely above reproach either. Repeatedly citing a couple of stories he broke in decades of journalism over and over makes you look like you're toadying for a TV psychic, who basically use the exact same tactic - they'll get 99 out of 100 predictions wrong and the 1 they get right would only be only sort of correct, but lordy, will they dine out on that forever.

[Sandydragon]

I suppose evidence from MSF and other front line observers is to be similarly discredited. I read with interest the verbal assassination of any eyewitness on sites like informationclearinghouse or global research and I'm left wondering what agenda are they pushing.

[UGagain]

I suppose evidence from MSF and other front line observers is to be similarly discredited. I read with interest the verbal assassination of any eyewitness on sites like informationclearinghouse or global research and I'm left wondering what agenda are they pushing.

You've been invited numerous times to elucidate on this 'agenda' that you accuse the non-authoritarians of having.

You've failed to do so, ever.

The UN report into the attack would appear to contradict your statements.

[rowan]

Well, since this thread about a non-fatal and relatively minor incident has morphed into a revival of the debate over the much more serious incident which occurred in Damascus three years ago, and since we are now required to busy ourselves reading articles presenting arguments and counter-arguments, here's a few more for you to mull over:

https://theinternationalreporter.org/20 ... d-in-2013/

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/12/16 ... w-coverup/

https://consortiumnews.com/2015/09/16/w ... -attack-2/

& all of this is an open secret where I am, btw. Everybody here knows exactly what's going on, but unfortunately the media is not able to print it. A group of editors and journalists have already been thrown in the can for exposing the supply route (later released by the courts, pending trial), one of whom was shot at as he attempted to attend his trial. Some charming folk you're attempting to exonerate here : https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/ ... side-court

[Donny osmond]

SO, several hours later we still have nothing.

UG has resorted to ad hominem. SO has Kamber.

Rowan tries to change the subject.

None will actually try to discuss the issues raised by various authors which undermine claims of a false flag attack. Yet this is the enlightened element, uninhibited by mainstream propaganda.

Meanwhile,Assad continues to perpetrate war crimes and nothing is said. If it were Israel, this place would be in meltdown.

Yes, but they are all thinking individually. Apart from UG and Kamber, obvs.

So, really, who has won this one? Think about it.

[UGagain]

State Dept Excuses Syria Rebel Group Over Terror Attacks
Insists 'One Incident Here and There' Doesn't Make Them Terrorists
by Jason Ditz, August 04, 2016

The US policy of arming “moderate” rebel factions in Syria has a lot of problems, but none bigger than the Nour al-Din al-Zinki, a Free Syrian Army (FSA) linked group that’s been getting US aid for quite some time, and also grabbing headlines for a series of incidents.

In early July, an Amnesty International report named them as one of several US-backed group involved in torture and summary executions. Just two weeks later, the group’s social media accounts showed fighters beheading a young Palestinian boy described as “an Assad soldier.” Now, Russia is suggesting this same group was responsible for a chemical weapons attack this week in Aleppo.

That’s a lot of bad publicity for a matter of a few weeks, and is starting to come up in State Department briefings, though spokesman Mark Toner downplayed the incidents, or the possibility that the US would stop arming Nour al-Din al-Zinki just because they beheaded a child and used chemical weapons.

“First of all, there’s a lot of betting of the Syrian moderate opposition that has already taken place, and it’s not just by the US,” Toner insisted, adding that “one incident here and there would not necessarily make you a terrorist group.”

Toner said that didn’t mean the US condoned the beheading or the chemical attack, but that the US focus was on backing “the moderate opposition,” and differentiating Nour al-Din al-Zinki from other groups like ISIS and al-Qaaeda’s Nusra Front, because those groups have aspirations to attack not just in Syria, but also against the West.

http://news.antiwar.com/2016/08/04/stat ... r-attacks/

[Sandydragon]

Well, since this thread about a non-fatal and relatively minor incident has morphed into a revival of the debate over the much more serious incident which occurred in Damascus three years ago, and since we are now required to busy ourselves reading articles presenting arguments and counter-arguments, here's a few more for you to mull over:

https://theinternationalreporter.org/20 ... d-in-2013/

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/12/16 ... w-coverup/

https://consortiumnews.com/2015/09/16/w ... -attack-2/

& all of this is an open secret where I am, btw. Everybody here knows exactly what's going on, but unfortunately the media is not able to print it. A group of editors and journalists have already been thrown in the can for exposing the supply route (later released by the courts, pending trial), one of whom was shot at as he attempted to attend his trial. Some charming folk you're attempting to exonerate here : https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/ ... side-court

Ive just wasted 5 minutes of my life reading the international reporter link. Despite repeated claims to be able to prove that the Sarin attack was a false flag operation, no actual evidence is provided. The author seems more intent on blaming the CIA for 9/11.

As for 'all of this is an open secret where I am, btw. Everybody here knows exactly what's going on'; thats probably because they are reading the same media outlets as you and distrust western media due to their governments current policy of stamping on its most important allies fingers. You claimed that extradition has been applied for based on what was commonly known in Turkey, but this clearly was incorrect. Could it be that the false flag attack was also boll*cks? Conspiracy theories in the middle east aren't exactly uncommon, a quick scan of local media shows plenty o them.

SO still no actual evidence to contradict the official version of events then?

[Sandydragon]

SO, several hours later we still have nothing.

UG has resorted to ad hominem. SO has Kamber.

Rowan tries to change the subject.

None will actually try to discuss the issues raised by various authors which undermine claims of a false flag attack. Yet this is the enlightened element, uninhibited by mainstream propaganda.

Meanwhile,Assad continues to perpetrate war crimes and nothing is said. If it were Israel, this place would be in meltdown.

Yes, but they are all thinking individually. Apart from UG and Kamber, obvs.

So, really, who has won this one? Think about it.

Or just regurgitating internet blogs without actually thinking the stories through?

[rowan]

Rowan tries to change the subject.


How, by responding to comments about a link to an article about an incident which occurred three years ago - on a thread about an incident which occurred three days ago? Ok, sure, I'm the one changing the subject here

[UGagain]

Well, since this thread about a non-fatal and relatively minor incident has morphed into a revival of the debate over the much more serious incident which occurred in Damascus three years ago, and since we are now required to busy ourselves reading articles presenting arguments and counter-arguments, here's a few more for you to mull over:

https://theinternationalreporter.org/20 ... d-in-2013/

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/12/16 ... w-coverup/

https://consortiumnews.com/2015/09/16/w ... -attack-2/

& all of this is an open secret where I am, btw. Everybody here knows exactly what's going on, but unfortunately the media is not able to print it. A group of editors and journalists have already been thrown in the can for exposing the supply route (later released by the courts, pending trial), one of whom was shot at as he attempted to attend his trial. Some charming folk you're attempting to exonerate here : https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/ ... side-court

Ive just wasted 5 minutes of my life reading the international reporter link. Despite repeated claims to be able to prove that the Sarin attack was a false flag operation, no actual evidence is provided. The author seems more intent on blaming the CIA for 9/11.

As for 'all of this is an open secret where I am, btw. Everybody here knows exactly what's going on'; thats probably because they are reading the same media outlets as you and distrust western media due to their governments current policy of stamping on its most important allies fingers. You claimed that extradition has been applied for based on what was commonly known in Turkey, but this clearly was incorrect. Could it be that the false flag attack was also boll*cks? Conspiracy theories in the middle east aren't exactly uncommon, a quick scan of local media shows plenty o them.

SO still no actual evidence to contradict the official version of events then?

The UN report contradicts your masters' voice. Give up.

[rowan]

As for 'all of this is an open secret where I am, btw. Everybody here knows exactly what's going on'; thats probably because they are reading the same media outlets as you and distrust western media due to their governments current policy of stamping on its most important allies fingers. You claimed that extradition has been applied for based on what was commonly known in Turkey, but this clearly was incorrect.

This is arrogance of the highest order. Do you really think Turks are just these silly, naive little people toddling about in some far off land with no notion at all of what is going on around them? No, they are Middle Easterners caught right up in the middle of all this, and they understand the history and geopoloitics just as well as you understand anything about what is going in Europe. Many Turks in the south actually regard themselves as Arab, have relatives south of the border, speak the language and cross back and forth between Turkey and Syria on a regular basis. I happen to have a few personal friends in that region. They see the US-backed rebels walking around in their streets and have no hesitation in describing them as terrorists.

& again the word-twisting tactic: I did not claim 'extradition had been applied for based on what was commonly known in Turkey' at all. I said that the Turkish leadership had been feroiciously demanding Gulen's extradition, but I was not personally aware they have failed to provide the necessary paperwork, although that was obviously only due to the fact they had yet to provide the necessary evidence. I read yesterday that a court order has been granted, however.

[UGagain]

As for 'all of this is an open secret where I am, btw. Everybody here knows exactly what's going on'; thats probably because they are reading the same media outlets as you and distrust western media due to their governments current policy of stamping on its most important allies fingers. You claimed that extradition has been applied for based on what was commonly known in Turkey, but this clearly was incorrect.

This is arrogance of the highest order. Do you really think Turks are just these silly, naive little people toddling about in some far off land with no notion at all of what is going on around them? No, they are Middle Easterners caught right up in the middle of all this, and they understand the history and geopoloitics just as well as you understand anything about what is going in Europe. Many Turks in the south actually regard themselves as Arab, have relatives south of the border, speak the language and cross back and forth between Turkey and Syria on a regular basis. I happen to have a few personal friends in that region. They see the US-backed rebels walking around in their streets and have no hesitation in describing them as terrorists.

& again the word-twisting tactic: I did not claim 'extradition had been applied for based on what was commonly known in Turkey' at all. I said that the Turkish leadership had been feroiciously demanding Gulen's extradition, but I was not personally aware they have failed to provide the necessary paperwork, although that was obviously only due to the fact they had yet to provide the necessary evidence. I read yesterday that a court order has been granted, however.

The Orientalism is palpable around here.

And the projection.

[Donny osmond]

SO, several hours later we still have nothing.

UG has resorted to ad hominem. SO has Kamber.

Rowan tries to change the subject.

None will actually try to discuss the issues raised by various authors which undermine claims of a false flag attack. Yet this is the enlightened element, uninhibited by mainstream propaganda.

Meanwhile,Assad continues to perpetrate war crimes and nothing is said. If it were Israel, this place would be in meltdown.

Yes, but they are all thinking individually. Apart from UG and Kamber, obvs.

So, really, who has won this one? Think about it.

Or just regurgitating internet blogs without actually thinking the stories through?

That appears to be what constitutes independent thinking, along with the ability to make 2 + 2 = 5.

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

[Zhivago]

UG has resorted to ad hominem. SO has Kamber.

My argument was against the credibility of your chosen sources of information. How is that ad hominem, pray tell?

You insinuate that I am believing propaganda blindly. Yet when provided with evidence I appear to be challenging it more robustly than many on here.

The truth s that it took 15 minutes o find the holds in the argument put forward by your mate. Yet, it's people like me who don't blindly accept the left wing bloggers who are so often quoted on here who are led by propaganda.

The fact is that despite being given ample time to provide credible evidence, there is nothing that contradicts the multiple official reports that all blame th Syrian government.Nothing to do with me. On this thread I've only ever addressed your opening post and the article and claims in it. Your attempt to link me to the other two posters is ad hominem, attacking my character by association

(In reply to the part highlighted in yellow)

That's bollocks. It is not ad hominem to find out why you trust certain sources.

I'm not 'insinuating' anything, especially not that you trust it blindly. If I was 'insinuating' that, why would I bother to ask you for the reasons why you trust it? Surely if I thought you trusted it blindly, there would be no reasons about which to enquire...

All I did was directly ask you why you trust it as a credible source of information. Now you've finally given your answer (after accusing me of ad hominem) - you trust it because it is repeated. I don't think that is sufficient grounds to trust the claims, given those organisations that are repeating the claim are simply amplifying the same single source of information. That is not corroboration, just collaboration.

[Zhivago]

According to Al Jazeera, who appear to be a trusted source.To you maybe For clarity, the use of chlorine gas against civilian areas is banned under international law - this is a clear war crime. Yes, no one disputes that. One of many committed by the Assad regime. I guess this is what the others dispute, and what I do not touch upon.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/08/s ... 51947.html

The thread has been dominated by the others disagreeing with the last point. I'd like to re-focus on the first sentence of Sandy's post. Should Al-Jazeera be regarded as a trusted source on this matter?

I say no for the following reasons:
a) It is state owned by Qatar. It is well established that Qatar is opposed to Assad. It is participating in the conflict. It is therefore not a neutral source.
b) It quotes a member of the 'White Helmets'. This group was founded by a hostile military agent and has been shown in the past to engage in disinformation against Assad. The organisation has also been shown to collaborate with terrorists - which is further demonstrated by the US gov revoking the visa of its leader. It is therefore also not neutral.

Sandy says yes because:
a) The story quoting only the same single biased source has been repeated in the Western media too.

I say that's not a good enough reason, because they are still relying on the same single biased discredited source.

Please, Sandy, I ask, do you still disregard these reasons that I raise?

[Sandydragon]

According to Al Jazeera, who appear to be a trusted source.To you maybe For clarity, the use of chlorine gas against civilian areas is banned under international law - this is a clear war crime. Yes, no one disputes that. One of many committed by the Assad regime. I guess this is what the others dispute, and what I do not touch upon.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/08/s ... 51947.html

The thread has been dominated by the others disagreeing with the last point. I'd like to re-focus on the first sentence of Sandy's post. Should Al-Jazeera be regarded as a trusted source on this matter?

I say no for the following reasons:
a) It is state owned by Qatar. It is well established that Qatar is opposed to Assad. It is participating in the conflict. It is therefore not a neutral source.
b) It quotes a member of the 'White Helmets'. This group was founded by a hostile military agent and has been shown in the past to engage in disinformation against Assad. The organisation has also been shown to collaborate with terrorists - which is further demonstrated by the US gov revoking the visa of its leader. It is therefore also not neutral.

Sandy says yes because:
a) The story quoting only the same single biased source has been repeated in the Western media too.

I say that's not a good enough reason, because they are still relying on the same single biased discredited source.

Please, Sandy, I ask, do you still disregard these reasons that I raise?

There is no source that is totally neutral or objective. Hence the need for multiple source validation. If you care to read the articles, you can get a sense of who the original source is, if it's not specified clearly.

When you look at some of the blogs out there that I'm sure you would like, I think you might find that they often rely on one source, Hersh for example is quoted on over a dozen sites that a cursory search found.

I note previously that you regard the sources you use as being more accurate. That is incorrect.

Incidentally the use f barrel bombs and chemical weapons by the Syrian forces has been reported by multiple sources, not just the white helmets who seem to stir up such disagreeable opinion (I note none of their critics are running around in a war zone doing humanitarian work). It's perfectly possible for aNGO to do humanitarian work and try to influence the news, yet the spite directed at them it quite extraordinary.

[Sandydragon]

According to Al Jazeera, who appear to be a trusted source.To you maybe For clarity, the use of chlorine gas against civilian areas is banned under international law - this is a clear war crime. Yes, no one disputes that. One of many committed by the Assad regime. I guess this is what the others dispute, and what I do not touch upon.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/08/s ... 51947.html

The thread has been dominated by the others disagreeing with the last point. I'd like to re-focus on the first sentence of Sandy's post. Should Al-Jazeera be regarded as a trusted source on this matter?

I say no for the following reasons:
a) It is state owned by Qatar. It is well established that Qatar is opposed to Assad. It is participating in the conflict. It is therefore not a neutral source.
b) It quotes a member of the 'White Helmets'. This group was founded by a hostile military agent and has been shown in the past to engage in disinformation against Assad. The organisation has also been shown to collaborate with terrorists - which is further demonstrated by the US gov revoking the visa of its leader. It is therefore also not neutral.

Sandy says yes because:
a) The story quoting only the same single biased source has been repeated in the Western media too.

I say that's not a good enough reason, because they are still relying on the same single biased discredited source.

Please, Sandy, I ask, do you still disregard these reasons that I raise?

Al Jazerra was highlighted as a trusted source elsewhere, and not by me.

There is no source that is totally neutral or objective. Hence the need for multiple source validation. If you care to read the articles, you can get a sense of who the original source is, if it's not specified clearly.

When you look at some of the blogs out there that I'm sure you would like, I think you might find that they often rely on one source, Hersh for example is quoted on over a dozen sites that a cursory search found.

I note previously that you regard the sources you use as being more accurate. That is incorrect.

Incidentally the use f barrel bombs and chemical weapons by the Syrian forces has been reported by multiple sources, not just the white helmets who seem to stir up such disagreeable opinion (I note none of their critics are running around in a war zone doing humanitarian work). It's perfectly possible for aNGO to do humanitarian work and try to influence the news, yet the spite directed at them it quite extraordinary.

[Sandydragon]

There you go young Kamber, it was Stom who suggested that Al Jazerra was more trustworthy.

Actually, only really Al-Jazeera, of the major news broadcasters, has any semblance of integrity any more.