RugbyRebels

Digby wrote:

UGagain wrote: You really crack me up sometimes the way you try to condescend to people who are way ahead of you.

It's these feelings of superiority which so inspire from those advocating absolute equality

UGagain wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:Care to respond to the specific points made in the critique of Hersh's claims.

How about this:

http://eaworldview.com/2013/12/syria-sp ... dissected/

A far more in-depth review of the situation that that provided by the left wing bloggers who accept his report at face value. Or RT for that matter.

You're just trying to divert attention away from the fact that you've been peddling unsubstantiated assertions as facts.

And condescendingly dismissing those who don't blindly accept you official assertions.

I don't have a dog in this fight. But your living and your world view depends on it (if we take your account at face value).

It takes all types I suppose. But I couldn't live with myself.

rowan wrote:Incidentally, it doesn't appear that this attack (or accident) involved any casualties. Looks like an incident blown way out of proportion at this point . . .

rowan wrote:Compared to other attacks, it was far less serious. Yes there were casualties, if not fatalities.

& it's already received more coverage than America's little accident a couple of weeks ago that turned 85 civilians into jam...

So who's telling the truth, do you think? A courageous, honest and unquestionably dedicated Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and author, or the governments of NATO members who started this proxy war in the first place?

Sandydragon wrote:

UGagain wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:Care to respond to the specific points made in the critique of Hersh's claims.

How about this:

http://eaworldview.com/2013/12/syria-sp ... dissected/

A far more in-depth review of the situation that that provided by the left wing bloggers who accept his report at face value. Or RT for that matter.

You're just trying to divert attention away from the fact that you've been peddling unsubstantiated assertions as facts.

And condescendingly dismissing those who don't blindly accept you official assertions.

I don't have a dog in this fight. But your living and your world view depends on it (if we take your account at face value).

It takes all types I suppose. But I couldn't live with myself.

So you cannot refute the counter argument made against the sources you quoted? Just more ad hominem.

rowan wrote:Compared to other attacks, it was far less serious. Yes there were casualties, if not fatalities.

& it's already received more coverage than America's little accident a couple of weeks ago that turned 85 civilians into jam...

So who's telling the truth about Damascus, do you think? A courageous, honest and unquestionably dedicated Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and author, or the governments of NATO members who started this proxy war in the first place?

Sandydragon wrote:

rowan wrote:Compared to other attacks, it was far less serious. Yes there were casualties, if not fatalities.

& it's already received more coverage than America's little accident a couple of weeks ago that turned 85 civilians into jam...

So who's telling the truth, do you think? A courageous, honest and unquestionably dedicated Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and author, or the governments of NATO members who started this proxy war in the first place?

Nice try. But everyone makes mistakes and his historic record doesn't mean that he is spot on correct with this one. There are plenty of holes in his narrative which have bene explored in the links below.

Sandydragon wrote:

rowan wrote:Compared to other attacks, it was far less serious. Yes there were casualties, if not fatalities.

& it's already received more coverage than America's little accident a couple of weeks ago that turned 85 civilians into jam...

So who's telling the truth, do you think? A courageous, honest and unquestionably dedicated Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and author, or the governments of NATO members who started this proxy war in the first place?

Nice try. But everyone makes mistakes and his historic record doesn't mean that he is spot on correct with this one. There are plenty of holes in his narrative which have bene explored in the links below.

UGagain wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

UGagain wrote:
You're just trying to divert attention away from the fact that you've been peddling unsubstantiated assertions as facts.

And condescendingly dismissing those who don't blindly accept you official assertions.

I don't have a dog in this fight. But your living and your world view depends on it (if we take your account at face value).

It takes all types I suppose. But I couldn't live with myself.

So you cannot refute the counter argument made against the sources you quoted? Just more ad hominem.

You really should stop misusing terms that you don't understand.

The article you posted is a critique. It isn't a counter-argument.

You're clutching at straws and you'll disappear from the thread in a huff shortly.

Same old.

UGagain wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

rowan wrote:Compared to other attacks, it was far less serious. Yes there were casualties, if not fatalities.

& it's already received more coverage than America's little accident a couple of weeks ago that turned 85 civilians into jam...

So who's telling the truth, do you think? A courageous, honest and unquestionably dedicated Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and author, or the governments of NATO members who started this proxy war in the first place?

Nice try. But everyone makes mistakes and his historic record doesn't mean that he is spot on correct with this one. There are plenty of holes in his narrative which have bene explored in the links below.

There's plenty of holes in your narrative.

You seem to think that the government's story has some magical quality that defies the rules of evidence or logic.

Sandydragon wrote:https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/05/13/syr ... als-weapon

Sandydragon wrote:

UGagain wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
Nice try. But everyone makes mistakes and his historic record doesn't mean that he is spot on correct with this one. There are plenty of holes in his narrative which have bene explored in the links below.

There's plenty of holes in your narrative.

You seem to think that the government's story has some magical quality that defies the rules of evidence or logic.

I could say exactly the same about you. But seriously, come one, if there are plenty of holes in the official narrative then it should be easy for you to point them out.

Sandydragon wrote:

UGagain wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
So you cannot refute the counter argument made against the sources you quoted? Just more ad hominem.

You really should stop misusing terms that you don't understand.

The article you posted is a critique. It isn't a counter-argument.

You're clutching at straws and you'll disappear from the thread in a huff shortly.

Same old.

Oh please. The articles I posted point to the glaring holes in the argument you provided. Yet you still seem to think that your original article means that the official reports were completely wrong. Why can't you address the points in more detail. DO you actually read and understand the posts you make or just post links that seem to justify your pre-held views. I ask because Im giving you every opportunity to argue this in a rational and normal way, yet you can't stop making attacks against me.

Come on, show some intellectual rigour.

rowan wrote: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

Sandydragon wrote:Just noises.

Awesome intellectual defense of your position. There I was thinking that if I gave you a couple of hours you might be able to address the points made. But no.

Sandydragon wrote:

rowan wrote: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.

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

UGagain wrote:


There is plenty of evidence from authoritative sources that have debunked your tale.

You won't hear it or read about it on prole feed corporate media is all.

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.