RugbyRebels

According to Al Jazeera, who appear to be a trusted source. For clarity, the use of chlorine gas against civilian areas is banned under international law - this is a clear war crime. One of many committed by the Assad regime.

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

FFS

According to Pulitzer Prize-winning American journalist Seymour Hersh, who exposed the My Lai Massacre in Vietnam and the atrocities at Abu Ghraib prison, the sarin gas attack in Damascus was a false flag orchestrated by NATO to justify a full-scale bombing of Syria, which was on the point of going ahead before overwhelming international opposition forced its abandonment. http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/10/23/ ... k-in-syria

Al Jazeera is very far from neutral on this conflict. It operates out of Qatar, which is actually at the heart of the problem. Qatar, backed by Saudi, wanted to build a trans-Syrian pipeline to Turkey and Europe, but Assad refused, while at the same time giving the green light to a pipeline from Iran to the Med via Syria and Lebanon. That's one of the several major reasons this proxy war has been instigated. http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-secret ... ia/5410130

rowan wrote:According to Pulitzer Prize-winning American journalist Seymour Hersh, who exposed the My Lai Massacre in Vietnam and the atrocities at Abu Ghraib prison, the sarin gas attack in Damascus was a false flag orchestrated by NATO to justify a full-scale bombing of Syria, which was on the point of going ahead before overwhelming international opposition forced its abandonment. http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/10/23/ ... k-in-syria

Al Jazeera is very far from neutral on this conflict. It operates out of Qatar, which is actually at the heart of the problem. Qatar, backed by Saudi, wanted to build a trans-Syrian pipeline to Turkey and Europe, but Assad refused, while at the same time giving the green light to a pipeline from Iran to the Med via Syria and Lebanon. That's one of the several major reasons this proxy war has been instigated. http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-secret ... ia/5410130

Is the actual evidence available?

A quick look on google shows lots of websites running the same story - that 2 opposition members of the Turkish parliament are blaming the Turkish military for supply Sarin. Yet there is no evidence of when or how this took place, other than a connection to a small amount of Sarin discovered that was intended for ue against a Turkish target by terrorists.

The attacks in Syria would have needed far greater amounts of Sarin. There is also the issue of the delivery methods, multiple rocket attacks which at the time were made by a weapon system that the rebels did not have access to.

Its a claim that is being jumped on, yet repeating it across hundreds of websites doesn't mean there is any proof that Turkey conspired to launch a false flag attack.

Incidentally, none of the Sarin gas attack claims undermine the point that Chlorine gas was allegedly used more recently.

Obviously we shouldn't leap to conclusions, which is why I'm not commenting directly on today's alleged attack.

As for the Damascus attack, Hersh is about as reliable a source as you can get, and his neutrality is beyond question. And, yes, he's far from alone in this view. Besides, the Assad regime would have to have been really really stupid to carry out such an attack - in Damascus - at pretty much the same time as UN inspectors were visiting the Syrian capital. Whatever else Assad is, he's certainly not a complete idiot.

& there is still the question of why NATO troops are involved in Syria at all. They weren't invited. They claim to be fighting ISIS but there is plenty of evidence to suggest they not only created ISIS (inadvertently or otherwise) but have been collaborating with them ever since, notably in the transportation and sale of stolen oil from the region.

They couldn't just bomb hell out of the place, because there is far too much anger arond the world over what they did to Iraq, then followed up in Libya. So they've started a proxy war in Syria, created terrorist groups, slaughtered civilians (accidentally or otherwise) and carried out false flag operations to justify their presence where it is completely unjustifiable. This is a very dirty game they're playing.

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 . . .

White Helmets... yeah, heard that name before

https://apfeurope.com/2016/05/white-hel ... t-exposed/

rowan wrote:Obviously we shouldn't leap to conclusions, which is why I'm not commenting directly on today's alleged attack.

As for the Damascus attack, Hersh is about as reliable a source as you can get, and his neutrality is beyond question. And, yes, he's far from alone in this view. Besides, the Assad regime would have to have been really really stupid to carry out such an attack - in Damascus - at pretty much the same time as UN inspectors were visiting the Syrian capital. Whatever else Assad is, he's certainly not a complete idiot.

& there is still the question of why NATO troops are involved in Syria at all. They weren't invited. They claim to be fighting ISIS but there is plenty of evidence to suggest they not only created ISIS (inadvertently or otherwise) but have been collaborating with them ever since, notably in the transportation and sale of stolen oil from the region.

They couldn't just bomb hell out of the place, because there is far too much anger arond the world over what they did to Iraq, then followed up in Libya. So they've started a proxy war in Syria, created terrorist groups, slaughtered civilians (accidentally or otherwise) and carried out false flag operations to justify their presence where it is completely unjustifiable. This is a very dirty game they're playing.

Harsh may have a good reputation, but there is no evidence that has been presented. if Sarin had been moved then surely some proof of when and how would be reasonable to expect? At the moment its just verbal accusations, not actual evidence.

Your point about Assad assumes that he authorized the attack directly. Or that, despite the presence of the UN personnel, he felt the situation dire enough to warrant it. He is smart enough to know that his retirement options are very limited - its win or be publicly and totally f*cked.

Sandydragon wrote:

rowan wrote:Obviously we shouldn't leap to conclusions, which is why I'm not commenting directly on today's alleged attack.

As for the Damascus attack, Hersh is about as reliable a source as you can get, and his neutrality is beyond question. And, yes, he's far from alone in this view. Besides, the Assad regime would have to have been really really stupid to carry out such an attack - in Damascus - at pretty much the same time as UN inspectors were visiting the Syrian capital. Whatever else Assad is, he's certainly not a complete idiot.

& there is still the question of why NATO troops are involved in Syria at all. They weren't invited. They claim to be fighting ISIS but there is plenty of evidence to suggest they not only created ISIS (inadvertently or otherwise) but have been collaborating with them ever since, notably in the transportation and sale of stolen oil from the region.

They couldn't just bomb hell out of the place, because there is far too much anger arond the world over what they did to Iraq, then followed up in Libya. So they've started a proxy war in Syria, created terrorist groups, slaughtered civilians (accidentally or otherwise) and carried out false flag operations to justify their presence where it is completely unjustifiable. This is a very dirty game they're playing.

Harsh may have a good reputation, but there is no evidence that has been presented. if Sarin had been moved then surely some proof of when and how would be reasonable to expect? At the moment its just verbal accusations, not actual evidence.

Your point about Assad assumes that he authorized the attack directly. Or that, despite the presence of the UN personnel, he felt the situation dire enough to warrant it. He is smart enough to know that his retirement options are very limited - its win or be publicly and totally f*cked.

No, my point about Assad was the opposite. He would have been a complete idiot to do it while the UN inspectors were around. Those wanting to set him up, or provide a pretext for invasion (which was discussed immediately in the aftermath and almost went ahead), had everything to gain, however, so it was no surprise when Pultizer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh linked the chemical weapons to a NATO member.

Sandydragon wrote: but there is no evidence that has been presented.

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.

Straightforward tit-for-tat.

UGagain wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: but there is no evidence that has been presented.

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)

Zhivago wrote:

UGagain wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: but there is no evidence that has been presented.

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.

UGagain wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: but there is no evidence that has been presented.

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.

Such as?

Sandydragon wrote:

UGagain wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: but there is no evidence that has been presented.

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.

Such as?

For example.......

http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/01/20/m ... ons-claim/

Not to mention the leaked e-mails from the DIA.

Your tale is old and stale, fella. Long rejected by all but the gullible.

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.

But you exclusively repeat corporate 'news' sources.

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.

Strawman and ad hominem. You don't have the capacity to know that about anyone here. You are assuming that others absorb information the way you do but from different sources.

That's just plainly untrue but beyond your ability to understand.

And of course we don't go to war for altruistic purposes

Yet you claim in every case that the NATO forces are protecting people from baddies.

So which is it?

- we go for national interest.

Who is 'we' and what does 'national interest' mean to you?

It seems to me that you're unwittingly admitting that you're a paid thug for the corporate class.

Its realpolitik - Ive repeated that enough on this site for most people to pick up on.

You mean the politics of the very rich ruling the earth and democracy is just a word to keep the masses from rising up?

That's what it means.

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.

Syria is getting the imperial treatment and the corporate media is playing its part in whipping up war fever. Just not very successfully.

People are seeing through the wall of bullshit. The same wall of bullshit you peddle.

UGagain wrote:

Sandydragon 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.

Such as?

For example.......

http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/01/20/m ... ons-claim/

Not to mention the leaked e-mails from the DIA.

Your tale is old and stale, fella. Long rejected by all but the gullible.

And quickly debunked in turn.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... tack-syria

The range may well not have been an issue according to the positioning of opposing forces at the time of the attack.

Hersh's investigation into this also lacks credibility - lots of unsubstantiated comments.

Still it was widely broadcast on Russia Today so it must be true, right?

Sandydragon wrote:

UGagain wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
Such as?

For example.......

http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/01/20/m ... ons-claim/

Not to mention the leaked e-mails from the DIA.

Your tale is old and stale, fella. Long rejected by all but the gullible.

And quickly debunked in turn.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... tack-syria

The range may well not have been an issue according to the positioning of opposing forces at the time of the attack.

Hersh's investigation into this also lacks credibility - lots of unsubstantiated comments.

Still it was widely broadcast on Russia Today so it must be true, right?

That is not in any way a debunking of the MIT report or the DIA emails.

FYI, I don't watch RT.

If you want genuine debate around here, you 'll need to stop that sort of adolescent shit.

Your comments are unsubstantiated and entirely lacking in credibility. Unless you're prepared to take Hersch et al on on the substantive issues, you're statement amounts to nothing.

Do you honestly think I'm going to bow to your 'authority'?

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

Ad hominem as per usual.

Try this link then. It pulls apart Hersh's narrative quite effectively, particularly concerning the capabilities of the rebels in undertaking such an attack, the range of independently compiled reports which all point at the Syrian government and the US signal intercepts which are also illuminating.

Your thoughts?

https://www.justsecurity.org/4452/disse ... ks-ghouta/

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

Sandydragon wrote:Ad hominem as per usual.

Try this link then. It pulls apart Hersh's narrative quite effectively, particularly concerning the capabilities of the rebels in undertaking such an attack, the range of independently compiled reports which all point at the Syrian government and the US signal intercepts which are also illuminating.

Your thoughts?

https://www.justsecurity.org/4452/disse ... ks-ghouta/

You clearly don't know what ad hominem means.

And you're doing your usual back peddling.

You said "there is no evidence".

That's clearly a false statement.

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.

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.