No....its a munition that has legally defined conditions of use.
One which the Americans have been repeatedly accused of breaking is a different argument as to whether WP is a chemical weapon or not
ISIL, ISIS, Daesh discussion thread.
- Thread starter RoboCod
- Start date
No....its a munition that has legally defined conditions of use.
One which the Americans have been repeatedly accused of breaking is a different argument as to whether WP is a chemical weapon or not
Which is more likely; All of the eyewitness accounts, footage, governments and organisations which have reviewed this, seem to be saying "well it certainly looks like a chemical attack, as far as we can tell by looking"?
Or
The whole thing is a lie and fabrication,
Going by the nature of your posts, you'd believe it was the latter? because you seem unwilling to give any of the footage, eyewitness accounts or any of the organisations or governments that are saying "it looks like an attack" any credence whatsoever.
Actually, any source that willfully didn't cover that incident could rightfully be considered illegitimate. It did not fit the UK foreign policy narrative.
To explain - the game in this particular aspect of the greater game is to achieve the OPCW coming out casting blame already, so that the Russians would then be seen as denying the OPCW's findings. For the US/UK foreign policy narrative, this would be a very powerful propaganda weapon compared to the OPCW impartially fact-finding and then each party at the UN giving their opinions and judgments.
The reason that they can never agree is because they'd all have to be seeking the truth and plainly all of them are not. Games are being played at high level. The impasse will ensure that what the US wants and the media has been goading Trump into doing - missile strikes, will take place. That is the purpose of the US proposal - to achieve no impartial investigation of the incident and continue basing their judgment on a viral video, or, if the Russians had submitted, to achieve adding to the OPCW's remit something that was never there before, and to weaponize it in the propaganda war.
Ah okay.
Research James le Mesurier and how the White Helmets came to be.
Vanessa Beeley's findings should be on the front pages of every British newspaper if these were legit:
Last edited:
Soldato
when governments lie to fulfill their own agenda and there are plenty of fake videos about, we dont need to believe any side, we can just wait for the experts to go in and have a look to see who is telling the truth.
why look like fools believing one side over the other when there are experts who can tell you what happened if you just have a little patience.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 12,649
Exactly, double standards and faux outrage over which method of murder is okay or not okay
If it's a chemical which WP is and can kill which it can, then it's a chemical weapon
Legal semantics over "honourable" usage in war are just pathetic and highlight how ****** up the moral compass of everybody is
Soldato
It's not the magic "conquer a town" weapon you think it is. It should also be noticed that they have a lot of hostages kept underground so chlorine gas is likely to sink and kill them if widely used. But if they've detected chlorine gas then that weakens the case against Assad. Chlorine gas is pretty easy to produce and from widely available materials. ISIS et al. are all more than capable of whipping some up if that's what's been used.
Tucker Carlson. But yes.
The Syrians, Russians and Iranians are more than capable of taking the town without providing massive political capital to those championing American attacks. Additionally, as pointed out earlier, there are a lot of hostages there. Chlorine is actually not a good weapon, fwiw.
Well equally if not more, the rebels have the weapons, capabilities and motives to do this. Syria does not have the motive. And the last time we were told they did this we've learned ten months later there isn't any proof. But this time we should believe because...?
They seem to be. I've explained twice already that the hypothetical scenario they want to discuss cannot exist. It is contradicted by the reality around us. They insist that we consider a scenario in which the UK and USA will go to war over those 80 deaths, though.
It has legal uses for illumination. But it is a CW when used as a weapon. The IDF have it under the claim of the first but have used it on people as a weapon. On a school in one case, iirc.
Soldato
I wonder if anyone has seen Syrian soldiers pulling babies out of incubators, yet?
Soldato
Good analysis. Also worth noting, imo, that the last time the OPCW got in the way of the USA's political goals, they stage-managed the resignation of its director (Bustani) and John Bolton dropped in personally to threaten the director's two children if he didn't resign. One more reason that the OPCW should be collecting evidence rather than acting as Judge and Jury.
This is particularly worth stressing in light of the chestnut flying about that Assad did not want to risk elite soldiers to capture that pocket. In reality, the Jihadis used child hostages to bargain their safe passage out (thousands of them), and the final remnant concocted this false flag before leaving with the children they were holding hostage.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-39500947
All lies I assume? or a false flag, or a fabrication, or a fairy tale - nothing to do with Assad whatsoever.
No doubt all the "actors" were rolling around with their skin painted a funny colour making choking dying sounds, and the people working for the lab were all getting their pizza from a small place in Connecticut that might have been affiliated with Hilary Clinton
Lol... how ironic that he's back just in time for this.
Soldato
Proof that it was Syria. And mockery is a poor argument.
I don't disagree, but the report from the OPCW and UN did apportion blame to Assad. Are you saying there wrong? The problem is the findings from those organisation mean nothing if any member of the SC can block it - for what ever motive, no matter what the evidence say. On a jury each members is independent of both the defendent and victim. Surely having an approximating of this here makes sense. It would be more transparrent and more trustworthy as a result.
Considering the report the OPCW is doing for the Salisbury incident, Russia has said they wouldn't accept it. Is it not a possibility that the same could happen here? (this just isn't about Russia but applies equally to the US or any other member). The conflict between Israel and Palestine would likely have ended if the US couldn't veto any resolution condemming their action.[/QUOTE]
Ah okay.
Research James le Mesurier and how the White Helmets came to be.
Vanessa Beeley's findings should be on the front pages of every British newspaper if these were legit:
All i've seen so far on that video are people talking, there is nothing there to back up what their saying.
have you also got a link to the original video i asked earlier, i don't particarly trust second source info from a site i know nothing about.
Trust is really the problem these days, there are so many different narratives conflicting with each other and obviously if they conflict some are not correct. I mean it's obviously in Assad's interests as well as Russia to use disinformation regaurding their enemies. How do we know the stories about the White Helmets are true or not.
Last edited:
The double-standards have now left the earth's atmosphere, with the OPCW agreeing with the UK that the OPCW's findings on the Skripal incident will be presented to the UK, and the UK will decide what to make public. Yet the Russians are bad for desiring the OPCW to fact find on the Douma incident and report back not to Russia, but to the UN.
I wasn't aware that the UK was deciding what to make public
I'll have a look see. The video in question stems from 2015 and was mentioned by Reuters and others at the time.
NM Found it
Here if anyone want a link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33vt9oghuvM
Edit: I've had a family member (who was a medical professional) look at this and it is clearly faked. No signs of chemical weapons, either burning, foam at the mouth etc. But there is clear signs of unconciousness, so if it wasn't chemical weapons then it was probably an opiate overdose.
The media should have acknowledged this after it was recognised to be a fake, and an investigation into the creators, the accounts used to publish the video etc.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 12,649
And where was the outrage ? Where was the UN security council meetings and threat of having missile strikes ?
Oh there wasn't any because Israel is on our side of this stupid ******* game of political chess
It's unsettling that you do think our leaders motives are altruistic when they're nothing but political moves in order to suit their own and their friends agendas it's why they show a blind eye to the Saudi dictatorship and actively fund the war in Yemen, if our leaders were such bastions of light they would not be allies with such scum and would be denouncing all atrocities instead of cherry picking the ones which suit their political agenda whilst ignoring the others and covertly assisting in them
Soldato
I think you may have confused me with Screech. Or else I've got my quote tags muddled up. I most certainly was NOT defending Israel's use of White Phosphorus - I was clarifying that it IS a CW and illegal. I've been arguing with Screech that our leaders are provably NOT altruistic and that questions about should the West intervene altruistically are impossible given the evidence. I don't think our leaders are acting out of altruism.
Lol. Clutching at straws!