RugbyRebels

Reading wiki I note that Jaysh al Islam was accused of carrying out a chlorine gas attack on them, back in 2016... So it seems they have such weapons themselves. I think it's a desperate attempt to get US to attack Assad. Or maybe their stores of these weapons were bombed...

Zhivago wrote:Reading wiki I note that Jaysh al Islam was accused of carrying out a chlorine gas attack on them, back in 2016... So it seems they have such weapons themselves. I think it's a desperate attempt to get US to attack Assad. Or maybe their stores of these weapons were bombed...

So it seems they have such weapons themselves.
Surely, that should read: So, it is alleged that they have such weapons themselves

It is entirely possible. They have displayed and used many items of ordnance captured from the Syrians, so it is entirely believable that they may have chlorine mortars.
And, surely the quickest, most effective, and most plausible way of proving this would be to allow an independent UN inspection? But yet, Russia and Syria don't want one. Russia wants editorial control over any inspection report.
Nevertheless, I'm sure that when the Syrian Government takes control of JaI areas, they will "find" evidence of a JaI chemical weapons store.

This bears all the hallmarks of a false flag in the finest traditions of American warmongering propaganda:

rowan wrote:This bears all the hallmarks of a false flag in the finest traditions of American warmongering propaganda:

This is the Peter Ford who is President of the British Syrian Society and close friends with Bashar al-Ashad's Father-in-law Dr. Fawaz Akhras?

President of the British Syrian Society is a problem for you? Somebody who is actually the leader of an organisation devoted to the interests of a nation in which they have served as ambassador should be dismissed as a reliable source? What's your idea of a reliable source? The Saudi & US-backed terrorists who are attempting to overthrow the government? How about Assad's major internal enemy, the Muslim Brotherhood? Would you rather hear from them on the issue? It's clear from your comments that you have bought into the warmongering, demonizing propaganda and have a problem with Syria as a nation, not the terrorists, nor the external forces who have instigated a war by proxy to try and destroy it.

rowan wrote:President of the British Syrian Society is a problem for you? Somebody who is actually the leader of an organisation devoted to the interests of a nation in which they have served as ambassador should be dismissed as a reliable source? What's your idea of a reliable source? The Saudi & US-backed terrorists who are attempting to overthrow the government? How about Assad's major internal enemy, the Muslim Brotherhood? Would you rather hear from them on the issue? It's clear from your comments that you have bought into the warmongering, demonizing propaganda and have a problem with Syria as a nation, not the terrorists, nor the external forces who have instigated a war by proxy to try and destroy it.

Do I have a problem with someone who is President of an organisation that is a propaganda outlet for the al-Assad regime? Not really, he has a right to represent who he wishes. Do I believe much of what he says? No.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/0 ... bby-group/
Last year Mr Ford wrongly blamed opposition forces for an attack on a UN aid convoy when an investigation proved it was either Russian or Syrian Government aircraft.

In 2012 Sir Andrew Green, another former British ambassador to Syria and then co-chairman of the society, quit after emails showed Dr Akhras had advised Assad on how to rebut evidence of civilians apparently being tortured.
Dr Akhras used a private email channel to the Syrian leader to offer advice on how the regime should handle criticism of its suppression of the opposition uprising, including how to counter video footage appearing to show the torture of children.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/sta ... -syria/en/
WHO is deeply alarmed by reports of the suspected use of toxic chemicals in Douma city, East Ghouta.

According to reports from Health Cluster partners, during the shelling of Douma on Saturday, an estimated 500 patients presented to health facilities exhibiting signs and symptoms consistent with exposure to toxic chemicals. In particular, there were signs of severe irritation of mucous membranes, respiratory failure and disruption to central nervous systems of those exposed.

More than 70 people sheltering in basements have reportedly died, with 43 of those deaths related to symptoms consistent with exposure to highly toxic chemicals. Two health facilities were also reportedly affected by these attacks.

"We should all be outraged at these horrific reports and images from Douma,” said Dr. Peter Salama, WHO Deputy Director- General for Emergency Preparedness and Response. “WHO demands immediate unhindered access to the area to provide care to those affected, to assess the health impacts, and to deliver a comprehensive public health response.”

Let's see if the Syrian Government allow the WHO "immediate unhindered access" to Douma city.

Right, so Stones has dismissed the comments of a man who was ambassador to Syria and now serves as head of an organization devoted to that nation's interests, but wants to quote Torygraph propaganda to us. Talk about cherry-picking your news sources. The very fact the BBC chose to interview Peter Ford should indicate they regarded him as a qualified and useful source. Or was that only if he said what they wanted him to say? Instead he has joined a rising number of voices suggesting there is actually no evidence against the government, and certainly no plausible motive. It is de ja vu all over again. We've just has the Salisbury saga, where no evidence against the dastardly Russians was ever produced, and not long before that the US backtracked on claims it had evidence Assad used chemical weapons last year - having already fired a missile at them as punishment. & of course the White Helmets et al had already convicted the government on that one as well. Your comments clearly indicate that you are with the terrorists and their supporters, and against the government which has been fighting them, and that is because you have bought into all the propaganda which is part and parcel of every regime change operation the US carries out - or attempts to.

Here, the Queen must be an evil old bat too, liaising with the Assads

rowan wrote:Just a month ago Syrian government forces uncovered a chemical weapons plant in an area of Eastern Ghouta recently held by Saudi-backed terrorists. This was actually reported in the mainstream news but created little interest and appears to have been completely forgotten. The equipment was also Saudi-made, while other materials were of Western origin. Meanwhile, the governments of both Syria and Russia warned that the terrorists might use chemical weapons again as they were leaving in a last desperate attempt to draw America into the conflict on their side. That too created little interest. In fact, the area concerned this time was also held by Saudi-backed terrorists. & these ones are notorious for public executions and parading women as human shields. So why are we looking at images of (seemingly healthy) kids having water splashed over them? Where did they come from, unless they had also been human shields? The Syrian government has been giving the terrorists themselves free passage out of town. So why would there be children in the very spot they had been holed up in? It's a blatant false flag.

rowan wrote:Right, so Stones has dismissed the comments of a man who was ambassador to Syria and now serves as head of an organization devoted to that nation's interests, but wants to quote Torygraph propaganda to us. Talk about cherry-picking your news sources. The very fact the BBC chose to interview Peter Ford should indicate they regarded him as a qualified and useful source. Or was that only if he said what they wanted him to say? Instead he has joined a rising number of voices suggesting there is actually no evidence against the government, and certainly no plausible motive. It is de ja vu all over again. We've just has the Salisbury saga, where no evidence against the dastardly Russians was ever produced, and not long before that the US backtracked on claims it had evidence Assad used chemical weapons last year - having already fired a missile at them as punishment. & of course the White Helmets et al had already convicted the government on that one as well. Your comments clearly indicate that you are with the terrorists and their supporters, and against the government which has been fighting them, and that is because you have bought into all the propaganda which is part and parcel of every regime change operation the US carries out - or attempts to.

Here, the Queen must be an evil old bat too, liaising with the Assads

Ah right, so facts reported by the Telegraph are in fact, not facts, but a man who represents a propaganda outlet for a totalitarian regime is in fact a fountain of truth.
And so it is in the world of Rowan through the looking glass.

I'm surprised that you're that much of a royalist Rowan. Though I suppose it's because she was cosying up to your child-killing man-crush in that photo.

Stones of granite wrote:

rowan wrote:Right, so Stones has dismissed the comments of a man who was ambassador to Syria and now serves as head of an organization devoted to that nation's interests, but wants to quote Torygraph propaganda to us. Talk about cherry-picking your news sources. The very fact the BBC chose to interview Peter Ford should indicate they regarded him as a qualified and useful source. Or was that only if he said what they wanted him to say? Instead he has joined a rising number of voices suggesting there is actually no evidence against the government, and certainly no plausible motive. It is de ja vu all over again. We've just has the Salisbury saga, where no evidence against the dastardly Russians was ever produced, and not long before that the US backtracked on claims it had evidence Assad used chemical weapons last year - having already fired a missile at them as punishment. & of course the White Helmets et al had already convicted the government on that one as well. Your comments clearly indicate that you are with the terrorists and their supporters, and against the government which has been fighting them, and that is because you have bought into all the propaganda which is part and parcel of every regime change operation the US carries out - or attempts to.

Here, the Queen must be an evil old bat too, liaising with the Assads

Ah right, so facts reported by the Telegraph are in fact, not facts, but a man who represents a propaganda outlet for a totalitarian regime is in fact a fountain of truth.
And so it is in the world of Rowan through the looking glass.

I'm surprised that you're that much of a royalist Rowan. Though I suppose it's because she was cosying up to your child-killing man-crush in that photo.

You're dismissing the expertise of a former ambassador to Syria who is now head of a British organization devoted to that nation's interest (a man the BBC itself deemed sufficiently qualified to interview on the subject), and presenting us with propaganda from the warmongering British press instead.

So totalitarian regimes hold elections, do they? Assad has. Of course it was dismissed by the West. You could dismiss the last elections we had too, but we're a NATO ally so no problem, and when were Saudi's last elections, by the way. But you're on Saudi's side here, clearly. So who exactly is supporting the totalitarian regimes? Your man-crush is obviously on King Salman the butcherer.

I'm not a royalist. I think the monarchy of the most murderous empire of the past few centuries should be abolished. I posted the photo merely to point out how duplicitous the British are.

Murray's latest: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives ... ent-734946

rowan wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

rowan wrote:Right, so Stones has dismissed the comments of a man who was ambassador to Syria and now serves as head of an organization devoted to that nation's interests, but wants to quote Torygraph propaganda to us. Talk about cherry-picking your news sources. The very fact the BBC chose to interview Peter Ford should indicate they regarded him as a qualified and useful source. Or was that only if he said what they wanted him to say? Instead he has joined a rising number of voices suggesting there is actually no evidence against the government, and certainly no plausible motive. It is de ja vu all over again. We've just has the Salisbury saga, where no evidence against the dastardly Russians was ever produced, and not long before that the US backtracked on claims it had evidence Assad used chemical weapons last year - having already fired a missile at them as punishment. & of course the White Helmets et al had already convicted the government on that one as well. Your comments clearly indicate that you are with the terrorists and their supporters, and against the government which has been fighting them, and that is because you have bought into all the propaganda which is part and parcel of every regime change operation the US carries out - or attempts to.

Here, the Queen must be an evil old bat too, liaising with the Assads

Ah right, so facts reported by the Telegraph are in fact, not facts, but a man who represents a propaganda outlet for a totalitarian regime is in fact a fountain of truth.
And so it is in the world of Rowan through the looking glass.

I'm surprised that you're that much of a royalist Rowan. Though I suppose it's because she was cosying up to your child-killing man-crush in that photo.

You're dismissing the expertise of a former ambassador to Syria who is now head of a British organization devoted to that nation's interest (a man the BBC itself deemed sufficiently qualified to interview on the subject), and presenting us with propaganda from the warmongering British press instead.

So totalitarian regimes hold elections, do they? Assad has. Of course it was dismissed by the West. You could dismiss the last elections we had too, but we're a NATO ally so no problem, and when were Saudi's last elections, by the way. But you're on Saudi's side here, clearly. So who exactly is supporting the totalitarian regimes? Your man-crush is obviously on King Salman the butcherer.

I'm not a royalist. I think the monarchy of the most murderous empire of the past few centuries should be abolished. I posted the photo merely to point out how duplicitous the British are.

Murray's latest: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives ... ent-734946

I’m dismissing the opinions voiced by someone who clearly has chosen to represent Bassar al-Assad who is as much a hereditary monarch as Queen Elizabeth, having been nominated and prepared by his Father to run Syria following his death after his elder brother was killed in a car crash. Al-Assad Senior was every bit as much a tyrant as his son. Holding mock elections doesn’t change that.
Craig Murray. Ha ha. The guy was an ambassador for about 20months, and spent most of it in Tashkent night clubs chasing Uzbek skirt.

One thing Paul Ford did get right in that a interview is the importance of getting independent investigators on site immediately. What a pity that the Russians vetoed the proposal to do so, and in there own proposal insisted on editorial control of any report.
You have to wonder what it is they want to hide.

The US has been accusing the Syrian government of chemical weapons attacks since the conflict began. It has also conceded that the terrorists have used chemical weapons. ISIS used them 52 times in Iraq, in fact, while the US was itself accused of doing so in Falluja. So if the terrorists were completely surrounded by the Syrian army, who was the more likely to have carried out a chemical weapons attack on children - the government on the point of victory, even as the US was preparing to pull out, or the terrorists seeking to draw the US back into the conflict? In 2013 the US accused Assad of a chemical weapons attack, though Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist Seymor Hersh found that the US had 'deliberately framed the evidence,' which had pointed to Al Nusra, known to have access to nerve agent and used them. UN weapons inspectors Richard Lloyd and Ake Sellstrom, along with Department of Defense scientific advisor Theodore Postol, also discounted Washington's claims. A year later the UN confirmed that Assad had destroyed his stockpile of chemical weapons. But that didn't stop the US pointing the finger at the Syrian government again last year and firing missiles at an airbase - effectively bombing the evidence before the investigation. This time former UN weapons inspector in Iraq Scott Ritter, joined Postol in expressing doubts that Assad was responsible, stating there was absolutely no evidence. Finally, just two months ago, Secretary of Defense James Mattis conceded there was no evidence against the Syrian government. So here we go again. De ja vu. Once more there is not a scrap of evidence against Assad, and absolutely no motive - quite the reverse, in fact. Besides which, a military response would only make matters worse and probably kill more civilians. As Noam Chomsky said, if the US has humanitarian concerns it could start by withdrawing its support for Saudi war crimes in Yemen and Israel's sniping of unarmed protesters in the Gaza strip. In fact, the US is actively bombing and causing widespread suffering in at least seven nations across the region - including Syria.

rowan wrote:The US has been accusing the Syrian government of chemical weapons attacks since the conflict began. It has also conceded that the terrorists have used chemical weapons. ISIS used them 52 times in Iraq, in fact, while the US was itself accused of doing so in Falluja. So if the terrorists were completely surrounded by the Syrian army, who was the more likely to have carried out a chemical weapons attack on children - the government on the point of victory, even as the US was preparing to pull out, or the terrorists seeking to draw the US back into the conflict? In 2013 the US accused Assad of a chemical weapons attack, though Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist Seymor Hersh found that the US had 'deliberately framed the evidence,' which had pointed to Al Nusra, known to have access to nerve agent and used them. UN weapons inspectors Richard Lloyd and Ake Sellstrom, along with Department of Defense scientific advisor Theodore Postol, also discounted Washington's claims. A year later the UN confirmed that Assad had destroyed his stockpile of chemical weapons. But that didn't stop the US pointing the finger at the Syrian government again last year and firing missiles at an airbase - effectively bombing the evidence before the investigation. This time former UN weapons inspector in Iraq Scott Ritter, joined Postol in expressing doubts that Assad was responsible, stating there was absolutely no evidence. Finally, just two months ago, Secretary of Defense James Mattis conceded there was no evidence against the Syrian government. So here we go again. De ja vu. Once more there is not a scrap of evidence against Assad, and absolutely no motive - quite the reverse, in fact. Besides which, a military response would only make matters worse and probably kill more civilians. As Noam Chomsky said, if the US has humanitarian concerns it could start by withdrawing its support for Saudi war crimes in Yemen and Israel's sniping of unarmed protesters in the Gaza strip. In fact, the US is actively bombing and causing widespread suffering in at least seven nations across the region - including Syria.

Ah, the false flag argument again.

The truth or otherwise of that could be established with an independent enquiry.

That Assad's main ally vetoes every attempt to set up an independent enquiry is very telling. No other member of the security council is demanding editorial control of the findings and no amount of long winded rambling from you is going to change that fact.

canta_brian wrote:

rowan wrote:The US has been accusing the Syrian government of chemical weapons attacks since the conflict began. It has also conceded that the terrorists have used chemical weapons. ISIS used them 52 times in Iraq, in fact, while the US was itself accused of doing so in Falluja. So if the terrorists were completely surrounded by the Syrian army, who was the more likely to have carried out a chemical weapons attack on children - the government on the point of victory, even as the US was preparing to pull out, or the terrorists seeking to draw the US back into the conflict? In 2013 the US accused Assad of a chemical weapons attack, though Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist Seymor Hersh found that the US had 'deliberately framed the evidence,' which had pointed to Al Nusra, known to have access to nerve agent and used them. UN weapons inspectors Richard Lloyd and Ake Sellstrom, along with Department of Defense scientific advisor Theodore Postol, also discounted Washington's claims. A year later the UN confirmed that Assad had destroyed his stockpile of chemical weapons. But that didn't stop the US pointing the finger at the Syrian government again last year and firing missiles at an airbase - effectively bombing the evidence before the investigation. This time former UN weapons inspector in Iraq Scott Ritter, joined Postol in expressing doubts that Assad was responsible, stating there was absolutely no evidence. Finally, just two months ago, Secretary of Defense James Mattis conceded there was no evidence against the Syrian government. So here we go again. De ja vu. Once more there is not a scrap of evidence against Assad, and absolutely no motive - quite the reverse, in fact. Besides which, a military response would only make matters worse and probably kill more civilians. As Noam Chomsky said, if the US has humanitarian concerns it could start by withdrawing its support for Saudi war crimes in Yemen and Israel's sniping of unarmed protesters in the Gaza strip. In fact, the US is actively bombing and causing widespread suffering in at least seven nations across the region - including Syria.

Ah, the false flag argument again.

Amazing that you would make a statement like that after the Iraq War. 2.4 million dead was not enough for you perhaps? & Wikileaks has revealed that the invasion of Libya was also based on lies. We know about the false testimony of Nayirah, that helped set the stage for America's first invasion of Iraq. We know also about the Gulf of Tonkin false flag. & the list goes on, right back to the false claims that got the US involved in a brief war with Spain 140 years ago and resulted in its first colonial acquisitions. & then some clown comes along and says Ah, the false flag argument again. Human stupidity knows no bounds!

In fact, Russia has always supported a proper investigation into the use of chemical weapons in Syria. What it has vetoed are biased reports. Indeed, one of those reports blamed Assad outright, yet the Americans themselves were subsequently forced to backtrack on its claims and concede there was no evidence at all. Investigative journalists and independent journalists on the ground in Syria have also disagreed with the reports.

rowan wrote:

canta_brian wrote:

rowan wrote:The US has been accusing the Syrian government of chemical weapons attacks since the conflict began. It has also conceded that the terrorists have used chemical weapons. ISIS used them 52 times in Iraq, in fact, while the US was itself accused of doing so in Falluja. So if the terrorists were completely surrounded by the Syrian army, who was the more likely to have carried out a chemical weapons attack on children - the government on the point of victory, even as the US was preparing to pull out, or the terrorists seeking to draw the US back into the conflict? In 2013 the US accused Assad of a chemical weapons attack, though Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist Seymor Hersh found that the US had 'deliberately framed the evidence,' which had pointed to Al Nusra, known to have access to nerve agent and used them. UN weapons inspectors Richard Lloyd and Ake Sellstrom, along with Department of Defense scientific advisor Theodore Postol, also discounted Washington's claims. A year later the UN confirmed that Assad had destroyed his stockpile of chemical weapons. But that didn't stop the US pointing the finger at the Syrian government again last year and firing missiles at an airbase - effectively bombing the evidence before the investigation. This time former UN weapons inspector in Iraq Scott Ritter, joined Postol in expressing doubts that Assad was responsible, stating there was absolutely no evidence. Finally, just two months ago, Secretary of Defense James Mattis conceded there was no evidence against the Syrian government. So here we go again. De ja vu. Once more there is not a scrap of evidence against Assad, and absolutely no motive - quite the reverse, in fact. Besides which, a military response would only make matters worse and probably kill more civilians. As Noam Chomsky said, if the US has humanitarian concerns it could start by withdrawing its support for Saudi war crimes in Yemen and Israel's sniping of unarmed protesters in the Gaza strip. In fact, the US is actively bombing and causing widespread suffering in at least seven nations across the region - including Syria.

Ah, the false flag argument again.

Amazing that you would make a statement like that after the Iraq War. 2.4 million dead was not enough for you perhaps? & Wikileaks has revealed that the invasion of Libya was also based on lies. We know about the false testimony of Nayirah, that helped set the stage for America's first invasion of Iraq. We know also about the Gulf of Tonkin false flag. & the list goes on, right back to the false claims that got the US involved in a brief war with Spain 140 years ago and resulted in its first colonial acquisitions. & then some clown comes along and says Ah, the false flag argument again. Human stupidity knows no bounds!

In fact, Russia has always supported a proper investigation into the use of chemical weapons in Syria. What it has vetoed are biased reports. Indeed, one of those reports blamed Assad outright, yet the Americans themselves were subsequently forced to backtrack on its claims and concede there was no evidence at all. Investigative journalists and independent journalists on the ground in Syria have also disagreed with the reports.

If you're just going to respond with ad hominem attacks could you at least have the decency to come up with a "witty" nickname for me along the lines of Hapless.

"What [Russia] has vetoed is biased reports..."

You talk utter shit a lot of the time. Only Russia is demanding editorial control of the investigation's report. That fact undermines their and you position.

You may note that the investigation into whether the Skripal's were attacked using Novichok reports today. That's investigation rather than obstruction. Should they find no Novichok then the British government will have a lot of questions to answer, but they, unlike Russia, have allowed an investigation.

canta_brian wrote:

rowan wrote:

canta_brian wrote:
Ah, the false flag argument again.

Amazing that you would make a statement like that after the Iraq War. 2.4 million dead was not enough for you perhaps? & Wikileaks has revealed that the invasion of Libya was also based on lies. We know about the false testimony of Nayirah, that helped set the stage for America's first invasion of Iraq. We know also about the Gulf of Tonkin false flag. & the list goes on, right back to the false claims that got the US involved in a brief war with Spain 140 years ago and resulted in its first colonial acquisitions. & then some clown comes along and says Ah, the false flag argument again. Human stupidity knows no bounds!

In fact, Russia has always supported a proper investigation into the use of chemical weapons in Syria. What it has vetoed are biased reports. Indeed, one of those reports blamed Assad outright, yet the Americans themselves were subsequently forced to backtrack on its claims and concede there was no evidence at all. Investigative journalists and independent journalists on the ground in Syria have also disagreed with the reports.

If you're just going to respond with ad hominem attacks could you at least have the decency to come up with a "witty" nickname for me along the lines of Hapless.

"What [Russia] has vetoed is biased reports..."

You talk utter shit a lot of the time. Only Russia is demanding editorial control of the investigation's report. That fact undermines their and you position.

You may note that the investigation into whether the Skripal's were attacked using Novichok reports today. That's investigation rather than obstruction. Should they find no Novichok then the British government will have a lot of questions to answer, but they, unlike Russia, have allowed an investigation.

Looks like the ad hominems are going both ways, but in fact this debate has been a relatively clean and constructive one by usual standards, with comments based mostly on the "evidence" and supporting arguments either way. So, yes, let's keep it that way. I was simply astounded that someone would dismiss the false flag argument when it is well-known and documented that this has been a standard method of getting the US involved in conflicts for the past 140 years, and never has this been more evident that during its most recent series of invasions, interventions and proxy wars across the Middle East. Would you respond to someone accusing ISIS of terrorism by saying: Ah, that old argument again

rowan wrote:

canta_brian wrote:

rowan wrote:
Amazing that you would make a statement like that after the Iraq War. 2.4 million dead was not enough for you perhaps? & Wikileaks has revealed that the invasion of Libya was also based on lies. We know about the false testimony of Nayirah, that helped set the stage for America's first invasion of Iraq. We know also about the Gulf of Tonkin false flag. & the list goes on, right back to the false claims that got the US involved in a brief war with Spain 140 years ago and resulted in its first colonial acquisitions. & then some clown comes along and says Ah, the false flag argument again. Human stupidity knows no bounds!

In fact, Russia has always supported a proper investigation into the use of chemical weapons in Syria. What it has vetoed are biased reports. Indeed, one of those reports blamed Assad outright, yet the Americans themselves were subsequently forced to backtrack on its claims and concede there was no evidence at all. Investigative journalists and independent journalists on the ground in Syria have also disagreed with the reports.

If you're just going to respond with ad hominem attacks could you at least have the decency to come up with a "witty" nickname for me along the lines of Hapless.

"What [Russia] has vetoed is biased reports..."

You talk utter shit a lot of the time. Only Russia is demanding editorial control of the investigation's report. That fact undermines their and you position.

You may note that the investigation into whether the Skripal's were attacked using Novichok reports today. That's investigation rather than obstruction. Should they find no Novichok then the British government will have a lot of questions to answer, but they, unlike Russia, have allowed an investigation.

Looks like the ad hominems are going both ways, but in fact this debate has been a relatively clean and constructive one by usual standards, with comments based mostly on the "evidence" and supporting arguments either way. So, yes, let's keep it that way. I was simply astounded that someone would dismiss the false flag argument when it is well-known and documented that this has been a standard method of getting the US involved in conflicts for the past 140 years, and never has this been more evident that during its most recent series of invasions, interventions and proxy wars across the Middle East. Would you respond to someone accusing ISIS of terrorism by saying: Ah, that old argument again

for my statement that you talk utter shit a lot of the time to be ad hominem, it would have to be fallacious.

Your assertion that any investigation the UN undertakes that is not under the control of Russia is biased is patently utter shit. Russia is a founding member of the UN and a permanent member of the security council. They are part of the UN and not separate to it and have as much influence over independent investigations as any other nation. That they are demanding more influence suggests to me, not that they should distrust the process, but that they are worried that the process will find what they want to hide.

Finally, I don't think you will find many on this board who want to see a campaign of bombing by western forces in Syria. I certainly don't. https://thebulletin.org/timeline but that does not mean that any investigation into a chemical weapons attack should be thwarted with no consequence.

Ditto my comments referring to you as a clown would have to be fallacious to be ad hominem, whereas anyone who treats the false flag argument as some worn-out empty phrase is clearly ignorant of the nature of American military interventions over the past 140 years - and most notably in the Middle East during the past quarter of a century - and therefore most worthy of the epithet. Has there been a bigger false flag in history than GW's WMDs claims?

You talk shit is bogan-speak, indicative of a juvenile mentality and narrow mind. Are you also sporting a mullet and copious tattoos by any chance?

As for vetoes, we know how frequently the US has used this procedure and that this passes without much comment from the Western media. What Russia has actually called for is a fair and impartial investigation into the use of chemical weapons. Scott Ritter of the Irak weapons inspection team has agreed with current weapons inspectors in Syria that there has been no evidence against Assad in any of them alleged chemical weapons attacks, while independent journalists such as Pulitzer Prize-winner Seymour Hersh have suggested the blame lies with the opposition. That UN inspectors actually blamed Assad for one attack that the US itself later backtracked on and conceded there was no evidence for is sufficient grounds for the Russians to claim bias and call for an independent inquiry, wouldn't you say?

What has happened in Syria is that the US and its cronies have attempted a regime change operation by proxy, arming and training mercenaries and jihadists, many of whom inevitably turned to terrorist activities, and then used the very presence of that terrorism as a pretext for direct involvement. But despite claiming to be fighting terrorists, the US has openly bombed pro-government forces on a number of occasions. It is also currently occupying the oil-rich north-east of Syria in direct violation of international law. This is all part of America's grand strategy to seize control of the entire Middle East, as revealed by former US general Wesley Clarke shortly after 9/11. But Russia has stepped in to prevent it this time because it has a vested interest in Syria, a close ally since the CIA attempted to stage a coup there in the 1950s (around the time it staged one successfully in Iran) and has a naval base at Tartus - one of only 3 military bases Russia maintains outside the borders of the former USSR (compared to approx. 800 American bases all around the world, including right along Russian, Chinese and Iranian borders). So there is no doubt Russia has defended Syria from a marauding, racist, brutal imperial force which has butchered millions across the Middle East since the beginning of the 1990s. Only in the twisted mind of the utterly brainwashed could they be regarded as the villains in the piece.

rowan wrote:Ditto my comments referring to you as a clown would have to be fallacious to be ad hominem, whereas anyone who treats the false flag argument as some worn-out empty phrase is clearly ignorant of the nature of American military interventions over the past 140 years - and most notably in the Middle East during the past quarter of a century - and therefore most worthy of the epithet. Has there been a bigger false flag in history than GW's WMDs claims?

You talk shit is bogan-speak, indicative of a juvenile mentality and narrow mind. Are you also sporting a mullet and copious tattoos by any chance?

As for vetoes, we know how frequently the US has used this procedure and that this passes without much comment from the Western media. What Russia has actually called for is a fair and impartial investigation into the use of chemical weapons. Scott Ritter of the Irak weapons inspection team has agreed with current weapons inspectors in Syria that there has been no evidence against Assad in any of them alleged chemical weapons attacks, while independent journalists such as Pulitzer Prize-winner Seymour Hersh have suggested the blame lies with the opposition. That UN inspectors actually blamed Assad for one attack that the US itself later backtracked on and conceded there was no evidence for is sufficient grounds for the Russians to claim bias and call for an independent inquiry, wouldn't you say?

What has happened in Syria is that the US and its cronies have attempted a regime change operation by proxy, arming and training mercenaries and jihadists, many of whom inevitably turned to terrorist activities, and then used the very presence of that terrorism as a pretext for direct involvement. But despite claiming to be fighting terrorists, the US has openly bombed pro-government forces on a number of occasions. It is also currently occupying the oil-rich north-east of Syria in direct violation of international law. This is all part of America's grand strategy to seize control of the entire Middle East, as revealed by former US general Wesley Clarke shortly after 9/11. But Russia has stepped in to prevent it this time because it has a vested interest in Syria, a close ally since the CIA attempted to stage a coup there in the 1950s (around the time it staged one successfully in Iran) and has a naval base at Tartus - one of only 3 military bases Russia maintains outside the borders of the former USSR (compared to approx. 800 American bases all around the world, including right along Russian, Chinese and Iranian borders). So there is no doubt Russia has defended Syria from a marauding, racist, brutal imperial force which has butchered millions across the Middle East since the beginning of the 1990s. Only in the twisted mind of the utterly brainwashed could they be regarded as the villains in the piece.

So the best you could manage was "I know you are, but what am I" and an attack on a group of people who you believe think in a certain way based on how they look. Can we add "bogans" to women when it comes to groups of people you are unable to interact with?

I genuinely feel sad for you. I think its good that there are people prepared to hold the west to account for their actions. But unless you do it with some semblance of balance you can only ever look a fool.

Also, if you are going to reply directly to me could you quote me please. Reading your reply I can understand why you wouldn't want to draw my attention to it, but it is common courtesy.

"This is all part of America's grand strategy to seize control of the entire Middle East"

Really? You think that is the US endgame. Control of the ENTIRE region.

That seems just a bit of a stretch to me.

Got anything substantial to back up the claim?

Europe, China, India, Russia, the USA... are all understandably going to want friendly regimes in oil rich countries, thus we see the USA accepting some of the misdeeds of the Kingdom, and Russia accepting Syrian disregard for humanity. They'll all justify the devil they know.

Meanwhile another NATO member's activities in Syria continue under the radar. Over 4000 evil terrorists killed so far, all of them of indigenous ethnicity, but not a single civilian. That's quite remarkable given our glorious leader has accused the evil terrorists of holding the civilian population hostage. Of course, those evil terrorists around Damascus would never dream of doing such a thing. Those children having water splashed all over them on the TV images were obviously right there in the middle of a war zone by choice; just like the children shown having water splashed all over them in Aleppo were there by choice. The Syrian army was on the point of victory then too. How silly Assad must be to unleash chemical weapons every time victory is within his grasp Meanwhile, latest reports are that Eastern Ghouta is now fully under government control. Cue an American bomb or two in anger...

It does rather sound like May wants to get involved in whatever France and the USA sign up to, and as Parliament isn't trusted they're simply going to state no boots on the ground means it's not a military involvement we need a parliamentary vote on. May may be right or not, but the sovereignty of Parliament is at best wobbly

Interesting that terrorists and civilians alike are being evacuated from Eastern Ghouta on luxury coach-lines without any sign of fire or harassment from the government forces now fully in control.

Also interesting that the main source for the allegations against Assad are again coming from the White Helmets, a US-funded, British-trained Jihadist organization embedded with the terrorists (and whose claims have been disproved in the past, notably by the father of 'the boy in the ambulance).

Also interesting that while Russia has been roundly condemned for vetoing a US resolution which was effectively set to condemn Assad (presumably on the above hearsay), two resolutions presented by Russia itself were not passed by the council - one actually calling for an endorsement of the ongoing OPCW investigation to establish whether a chemical attack had even taken place. So what have the US and its cronies got to hide??

Also interesting is that our glorious leader has joined the call for the US to bomb Syria as punishment. Contrary to popular belief relations with the US have never been better, and that is obviously because our glorious leader is a paragon of democracy, liberty and peace.

Tim Hayward column: https://timhayward.wordpress.com/2018/0 ... -guardian/