Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 7,126
Actually its on you to prove that the west is funding ISIS, quite a fanciful claim that, borderline lunacy really.
ISIL, ISIS, Daesh discussion thread.
- Thread starter RoboCod
- Start date
Don't forget the Saudis. Or Boris Johnson's announcement of millions in "non-humanitarian aid" to the MI6-created White Helmets. Or how ISIS was allowed to drill for and sell Syrian oil for ages, till Russia put a stop to it (when suddenly the US noticed the oil convoys and carried out a token strike too). The foreign mercs in Syria getting paid wages. Jihadis treated in Israeli hospitals. John McCain meeting with the head of ISIS at the beginning of the war. The huge weapons deal May and Trump signed off on with the Saudi tyrant in March? Many of those weapons will end up with the Jihadis in Syria, just like other weapons provided by the Americans to so-called "moderate rebels" ended up with the Jihadis in the past. This, and far more, is all there for anyone who wants to know. Some prefer not to.
I don't agree with you that it's borderline lunacy. It's most definitely lunacy, but on behalf of the ones carrying it out.
Tell me, what makes you think they are not a proxy army aided by some western countries and others? Words? Token missile strikes now and then? More words?
Brilliant. It's like CT bingo. I just need "sheeple" for a full house.
RaohNS is quite funny to watch.
It's easy to see why people lap that kind of crap up though. Maybe they want to feel special by convincing themselves of some crazy alternative viewpoints. A couple of my mates are exactly like that and I can give them the most logical explanation on many of their concerns yet they'll still never be convinced out of their paranoia. The pot smoking lunatics.
If people can be different or "out there" with their views then I think they see themselves as special. Sadly it usually just means they're just clueless on the matters that they feel qualified to rant about.
Last edited:
Surely this is where someone says FALSE FLAG!!...?
Oh no, it's not America doing something. Disregard.
Yes it reacts nastitly with humans but given its used in many industries (you even have some im your house) its not classes as a chemical weapon same way sulphuric acid in your car battery isn't.
So it's not covered by investigations which is why it has been used.
If chlorine was declared a chemical weapon it would be a nightmare for industry around the world to try and secure it.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2009
- Posts
- 4,590
Chlorine Gas can be made by anyone at home with stuff from ASDA.
There are youtube vdeos on how to make it and instructions available on the internet, only 5 steps to make it seems!
There are youtube vdeos on how to make it and instructions available on the internet, only 5 steps to make it seems!
Caporegime
1 step. What's difficult is to contain it.
Soldato
Yes, but then you put it in a shell casing with a propellant aim it at your opponents and it is a chemical weapon. It may not be on a schedule by OPCW but that is semantics in my opinion. You have to be a right ******* to even think about deployment in any theatre leave alone a civilian population. There are no excuses IMO.
Yes we did it at school several decades ago just mixing two different cleaning compounds, my comment above still stands though.
Last edited:
Yes you are correct my point being it renders the whole "but inspectors said there are nonchemcial weapons!!" Point moot.
It also makes a strike on an empty chemical weapons storage bunker a pointless waste communications proving that these "retaliation" strikes are simply to save face to us at home they bombed nothing of value to Syria or russia.
Trump pushed us into a stupid position with his "nice and new and smart" tweet and as a result we have had perfectly back down target nothing of value and admit fully that we are unwilling timescale directly.
So we have just handed Assad a permission slip to continue using chlorine as we won't do anything meaningfully to stop him
I don't think it was pointless to react to the use of chemical weapons by striking chemical weapons storage facilities and a research centre - it is the fact they were used that needed a reaction. Sure chlorine itself has other uses and possessing chlorine isn't a problem in a general sense.
The willingness to use chemical weapons though is worrying and responding to that is right, targeting facilities used to develop and store chemical weapons is appropriate.
It is supposed to be chlorine and sarin that were used btw...
The willingness to use chemical weapons though is worrying and responding to that is right, targeting facilities used to develop and store chemical weapons is appropriate.
It is supposed to be chlorine and sarin that were used btw...
not necessarily, how was the research centre empty for example?
You'd have to define what we mean by research center tbh.
Was it inspected or was it hidden from thbe insoection?
If it was inspected then surely it's empty or operating like ours purely on an analysis and countermeasure basis.
I can't really see Syria running its own development program of new chemical weapons at this point that more the peacetime thing of massive nations.
Soldato
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/update-air-strikes-against-daesh#history
https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...t/raf-air-strikes-in-iraq-and-syria-july-2017
Oh sorry, all those bombings against Daesh targets must be the "token airstrikes" you were on about
False flag.https://www.gov.uk/government/news/update-air-strikes-against-daesh#history
https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...t/raf-air-strikes-in-iraq-and-syria-july-2017
Oh sorry, all those bombings against Daesh targets must be the "token airstrikes" you were on about
Fake news.
You're being programmed.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/update-air-strikes-against-daesh#history
https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...t/raf-air-strikes-in-iraq-and-syria-july-2017
Oh sorry, all those bombings against Daesh targets must be the "token airstrikes" you were on about
And the bit of slapping I mentioned. And then you have times such as:
22 terrorists in four months is hardly a serious fight against Daesh in Syria.
In any case, all these numbers are impossible to verify.
22 by the UK. Just goes to show we're not targeting just any runt on the ground, but ISIS command with precise munitions. Mind you,if the number was 2222, you'd be bleating that we're blood thirsty tyrants wasting tax payers money dropping so many bombs. Either way, more moot rambling from russiabot.
Disregard then, it's all fake news.
I don't know whether it was inspected or not... I don't think it matters much - it isn't there any more and can't be used - seems like a relevant target
That's without even taking into account we only voted to extend operations into Syria, and only eastern Syria iirc, in Dec 15, our focus was still on tackling IS in Iraq. The ROE that the RAF was under, ie: no civilian casualties, of which there had been none reported in this 1000 IS deaths. And since this is guerrilla warfare, where the militants either blend in civilian areas and certainly don't stand round in large armed forces with targets on their head or as people love to keep pointing out, use civilians as human shields, then all of a sudden it becomes blindingly obvious why there isn't masses of IS casualties from airstrikes.
But no, lets just latch on to a number (without the slightest thought or context of what that number represents) and think it shows we're actually in bed with ISIS....
notwithstanding the same people criticise the west when they kill civilians as collateral damage in attacks are now criticising them for not killing civilians as collateral damage...