"many people"
"They said"
"They claim"
"They had never believed"
Some quality reporting there.
"They said"
"They claim"
"They had never believed"
Some quality reporting there.
ISIL, ISIS, Daesh discussion thread.
- Thread starter RoboCod
- Start date
Harsh. Very.
If you were a reporter who visited Douma, would you insist on taking down the names of absolutely everyone you casually spoke to in order to get a general feel of things, on the street, instead of just the names of a smaller sample of people you actually interviewed, such as:
and:
Or would you only restrict yourself to interviewing a few people, and not try and get a general feel from others?
Enlighten me, please.
Funny isn't it that the Syrian forces can escort and protect a group of Journalists to enable them to visit Douma, but cite security reasons and the inability of keeping the OPCW inspectors safe as to why they have been blocked so far from visiting Douma.
Now, if I was a conspiracy theorist I might think they were trying to clean up first......lucky I'm not one eh?
That's a no then, shame I was hoping you would let slip some classified intel or something XD
It's telling when the article sets out its entire piece on the sentiments from one doctor. Fake news anyway, right?
"Intel"... Haha
I think the link I gave you is pretty much all you need. Given the Americans have the abilities that they do, I think it's fair to say they are best placed to ascertain who did it.
InB4 false flag/fake propaganda/Russians didn't say it so it's not true.
Soldato
Seems strange though, I always thought the purpose of a false flag was to create an actual event which places blame on an innocent party, not a fabricated lie which didn't even happen
Take 9/11 people claim it a false flag, but 2 planes did actually fly into the 2 towers....
Na, the planes were actually cruise missles in disguise or holograms (some lunatics claim this)
A random website where the author puts forward an opinion with nothing to back it up isn't evidence, you can't cite that as a source for your theory (especially as it doesn't even say anything to support it).
Funny isn't it that the Syrian forces can escort and protect a group of Journalists to enable them to visit Douma, but cite security reasons and the inability of keeping the OPCW inspectors safe as to why they have been blocked so far from visiting Douma.
Now, if I was a conspiracy theorist I might think they were trying to clean up first......lucky I'm not one eh?
Yeah. On the other hand, the safety concerns, given the games being played, will be no joke (even if it turns out to have been an excuse). Players are looking for any means possible to harm each other's propaganda and advance their own. Things will be on knife edge there, with neither side trusting each other and expecting shenanigans.
Looks like they are in now, anyhow. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-43792120
Caporegime
Good article here: 'Russia Says It Has “Irrefutable Evidence” U.K. Staged Chemical Attack in Syria. Let’s See It.'
I stopped reading The Intercept a while ago, because I don't think it's as objective as it used to be. But this analysis looks pretty sound.
They're always happy to give a free pass to journalists who will toe the party line and repeat what the regime wants to hear. One of their favourites right now is the unconscionable Robert Fisk.
I stopped reading The Intercept a while ago, because I don't think it's as objective as it used to be. But this analysis looks pretty sound.
Funny isn't it that the Syrian forces can escort and protect a group of Journalists to enable them to visit Douma, but cite security reasons and the inability of keeping the OPCW inspectors safe as to why they have been blocked so far from visiting Douma.
Now, if I was a conspiracy theorist I might think they were trying to clean up first......lucky I'm not one eh?
They're always happy to give a free pass to journalists who will toe the party line and repeat what the regime wants to hear. One of their favourites right now is the unconscionable Robert Fisk.
the circumstances of chlorine use are sickening, its not a "battlefield" task for it its a deliberate killing of civilians in shelters use.
surely we must know vaguely where Assad is? MOAB, gbu-28, or whatever monstrosity we have at this point has to be worth a punt?
Caporegime
Killing Assad is a very bad idea.
Problem is if you miss that tends to open up all kinds of **** - trying to headshot the leadership generally is pretty difficult and can sometimes backfire - especially in Syria where Assad has a fairly popular following generally.
EDIT: Plus all the potential problems of a power vacuum and not being filled by someone worse.
its onkly a bad idea if you cant follow up with the next 3 people who replace him.
as after that they arent going to be allied to russia anym more.
Caporegime
They did that with Saddam Hussein, and look how it turned out.
we killed Saddam's successors?
i know one got carbombed but i didnt think that was the USA (source?) and at least one is retired. after that i dont know tbh they're on like number 5
Sounds very much like yourself!
I'll cite what I like
Yeah the ONIR and now SBIR system is a load of made up twaddle.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-Based_Infrared_System
https://amp.space.com/39427-atlas-v-rocket-launches-missile-warning-satellite-sbirs-4.html
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Tracking_and_Surveillance_System
@ubersonic , I can only summise that you didn't bother to read the whole article either, otherwise you'd have noted the sources at the bottom of it..
Fine, I'll rephrase: while you can cite whatever you like in order to add validity to your claim, citing A random website where the author puts forward an opinion with nothing to back it up doesn't add any credibility. Furthermore using it as a source for your theory doesn't work when it doesn't even say anything to support it.
I did hence why I pointed out that the part you're referencing is the authors opinion and has no source cited, and also that it doesn't actually back up your claim.
To clarify further, the part you're referencing is this bit (I assume as it's the only part related to the topic):
The reason there is no source cited and it says "is likely to have" is because the author wishes to make it clear it's merely his opinion. Short of the US declassifying it's intel there's no way we can know if any of this is correct, but it's irrelevant as it doesn't actually support your claim anyway. It says the missile was Russian made not that it was fired by Russia (which is technically incorrect too as the author is using Russian made as a drop in replacement for Soviet made, and that's not how it works).
So while your conspiracy of Russia shooting it down is quite enticing, as you have nothing to support it but your gut I will opt to stick with the known facts/official story. That it was Ukraine pro-Russian rebels who shot it down and that Russia helped them make the evidence disappear.
So while your conspiracy of Russia shooting it down is quite enticing, as you have nothing to support it but your gut I will opt to stick with the known facts/official story. That it was Ukraine pro-Russian rebels who shot it down and that Russia helped them make the evidence disappear.
Last edited: