ISIL, ISIS, Daesh discussion thread.
- Thread starter RoboCod
- Start date
What of the possibility that the intention on the part of the UK and France is to protect civilians and that the presence of the likes of AQ is an unfortunate collateral issue? nothing you've presented proves that the UK and France's actions are intended first and foremost to protect AQ as you are inferring (which may or may not be the case).
We can judge the validity of their intentions by looking at what they have a history of doing.
UK: Saddam has WMDs so we have to go to war due to the imminent threat he poses to the UK and world in general.
Lies resulting in a minimum of 600K dead (and that's a very conservative estimate).
UK & France: Gaddafi must be stopped and Libya bombed by NATO to stop an imminent massacre in Benghazi.
Lies leaving Libya in ruins with jihadis we supported running wild and public slave auctions of black Africans taking place. Years later the Foreign Affairs Select committee even said the arguments made at the time were overstated and not based on evidence.
https://publications.parliament.uk/...m_medium=sumbullet&utm_campaign=modulereports
UK & France: Assad must go as he is slaughtering his people with chemical weapons etc, etc.
Lies again. Every time the jihadis are cornered and on the verge of military defeat there are very convenient chemical weapons attacks blamed on the Syrian government even though they have zero reason to carry out the one thing that guarantees western military action. The evidence in each case comes from dubious groups funded by the West and/or jihadis with no independent verification.
The UK & France have a history of lying and carrying out regime change wars based on lies, but this time it's different?
No-one disputes that Idlib is controlled by Al Qaeda so Syria has no choice, but to take it back. What has it got to do with the UK and France? Why are we even going so far as to pick a fight with Russia over it?
Anyway even though we disagree it's nice that some people are capable of a mature discussion
We can judge the validity of their intentions by looking at what they have a history of doing.
UK: Saddam has WMDs so we have to go to war due to the imminent threat he poses to the UK and world in general.
Lies resulting in a minimum of 600K dead (and that's a very conservative estimate).
UK & France: Gaddafi must be stopped and Libya bombed by NATO to stop an imminent massacre in Benghazi.
Lies leaving Libya in ruins with jihadis we supported running wild and public slave auctions of black Africans taking place. Years later the Foreign Affairs Select committee even said the arguments made at the time were overstated and not based on evidence.
https://publications.parliament.uk/...m_medium=sumbullet&utm_campaign=modulereports
UK & France: Assad must go as he is slaughtering his people with chemical weapons etc, etc.
Lies again. Every time the jihadis are cornered and on the verge of military defeat there are very convenient chemical weapons attacks blamed on the Syrian government even though they have zero reason to carry out the one thing that guarantees western military action. The evidence in each case comes from dubious groups funded by the West and/or jihadis with no independent verification.
The UK & France have a history of lying and carrying out regime change wars based on lies, but this time it's different?
Anyway even though we disagree it's nice that some people are capable of a mature discussion
And what of the other side of the coin? do Syria and Russia have precedent for indiscriminate use of ordnance, or the use of chemical/gas weapons?
Anyway even though we disagree it's nice that some people are capable of a mature discussion
Who said anything about agree or disagree? I certainly don't have a firm position over these chemical weapon incidents, etc.
Hmmm....
It was clear that intelligent debate was a big ask sometime ago. Particularly since you're so bias.
For conventional weapons I'm sure they do as every army bangs on about precision-guided weapons as if they are magic, but of course if you drop explosives on highly populated areas civilians will be killed. Watch RT and there is zero mention of civilian casualties in Russian operations in Syria...magic.
Gas attacks? The evidence comes from UK & US-funded groups like the White Helmets and Syrian American Medical Society without any independent verification from the OPCW who, besides the last one in Douma where they found nothing, didn't visit the sites and didn't have any proper chain of custody for the samples provided to them which came from those western-funded groups I mention. Highly dubious to say the least. The timing of the alleged attacks is when the jihadis are losing militarily and only they stand to benefit from them. Syria has the Russian army backing them up...makes zero sense resorting to such ineffective weapons.
A large area of Syria is controlled by at least 10,000 Al Qaeda militants who have imposed sharia law and Syria, as any country would, is planning to retake the area with the help of their ally, Russia. Russia was invited in by Syria. The UK, US & France are there illegally.
Their past actions show they couldn't care less about protecting civilians and they have been trying to topple Assad since 2011 so their professed humanitarian motives are laughable. They have no legal basis to act in Syria and their actions are allowing Al Qaeda to remain in power in Idlib. This is the second time they have stepped in now.
Imagine jihadis took over Scotland and China threatened to attack the British Army if they dared take it back. It's that ridiculous.
Our insane government is risking war with Russia over it. Unlike the usual third world countries we pick fights with they can hit back.
Fair enough.
Last edited:
Permabanned
- Joined
- 11 Feb 2011
- Posts
- 2,136
There were multiple videos and eye witness accounts from multiple sources.
You're so woke dude
How many documented instances of governments conducting or conspiring with false flags do you need to be made aware of before you'd consider it possible in this case? And why is it suddenly not possible now? Because it's the USA or Israel? Because I have bad news for you about that. Why is it so unlikely when it's hugely useful to Assad's enemies? When the means are so easily within their capability? When it actively harmed Syria but you still believe it to be Syria's fault? When the OPCW were actively prevented from investigating and the USA has prior history in subborning the OPCW that we know about. Logic and reason at the least make a good case for the US or Israel forces or their allies perpetrating either a false flag or a hoax and at worst make a strong case that this is what happened. Your utter dismissal of the possibility, your mocking of people who consider it, frankly that tells us all we need to know about your actual honesty or open-mindedness on the subject. And clearly lacking at least one of those two, you have nothing worth adding here.
Soldato
- Joined
- 9 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 4,698
- Location
- Wiltshire
Oh please lets stop with the crap analogies and as if Assad doesn't have thousands of civilian lives on his hands.
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...syria-atrocities-regime-photographed-murdered
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...syria-atrocities-regime-photographed-murdered
So when are we "stepping in" to stop Russia? Oh sorry the white helmets are mentioned, it must be fake.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...e-helmets-assad-russia-kansafra-a8908281.html
Last edited:
Who is saying Assad doesn't have blood on his hands? Why is that relevant? There are only two ways countries can take military action against another and its's either in self defence or with a UN Security Council resolution; the UK has neither.
Why is it a 'crap analogy'?
Idlib is a part of Syria and is run by Al Qaeda, correct? A foreign power, us, is attempting to stop them from retaking it, correct?
How is that different to my analogy of China threatening to attack the British Army if they dared retake Scotland from jihadis?
"So when are we "stepping in" to stop Russia? Oh sorry the white helmets are mentioned, it must be fake."
We already did in August 2018 when Syria and Russia backed down from their offensive on Idlib due to threats of military action from the US, UK and France. We are doing the same now.
You do realise, don't you, that the White Helmets were set up by an ex-British Army officer, James Le Mesurier, in Turkey and are funded by the British, Americans and the rest of the regime-change wanting countries? That on the front page of their website they cheer on Western military action against Syria?
They are the people you rely on for impartial evidence?
Jesus, it's like Iraq never happened.
Why are you against a country retaking its territory from Al Qaeda?
Do you want to go to war with Russia over protecting Al Qaeda in Idlib?
Last edited:
Yes, I saw the videos. Where did they come from?
I can't believe I'm arguing with people on this thread about the justifications for the Iraq war even though it's as clear a war crime as you can get. The power of propaganda is immense.
If they buy the reasons for Iraq there's no hope for them. They are immune to reason.
Oh I don't deny that there are a lot of things that happen behind the scenes and that many things are orchestrated. What I don't agree with is the dramatisation and the ridiculous heroic like self deprecating some people want to portray. For example, the usual blame of the west for absolutely every wrong in the world (it's pretty much the case that the wrongs were there in the first place and the west just exacerbates it all to help fuel its rich lifestyle - critics deal with it or get off the Internet and live in a cave, hypocrites). To the wild claims that the west solely are responsible for 600k+ iraqi deaths. Statements like that smack of dishonesty, lack of understanding, or just merely driving an agenda..
The mocking is purely because these people come across that they're suddenly making a revelation on these matters. No, they're not, they're regurgitating third hand "news" sources at best, CT site drivel at worst.
Nothing of value as usual besides blanket dismissal of sourced criticism of our gov's foreign policy as you struggle with details.
The 600K figure for Iraqi deaths I quote comes from a 2006 Lancet report estimating excess deaths caused by the invasion. The US/UK etc didn't directly kill each one, but they are ultimately responsible as they created the chaos that led to them.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(06)69491-9/fulltext
The Lancet is a prestigious peer-reviewed medical journal. You think they are making 'wild claims'?
2019 and people are still minimising the war crime of Iraq...
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 9 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 4,698
- Location
- Wiltshire
Well its a good job we didnt listen to the UN then because I doubt ISIS would have been beaten in Raqqa and many other places without the support the SDF had from America.
I dont, I was relying on the independent in that case. But where is the military action against Russia now then? Theyve just bombed idlib.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/18/syria-white-helmets-conspiracy-theories - Oh its almost as if Syria and Russia want to discredit these guys because they were pulling kids out of buildings they had just bombed hmmm
Because thats the tone of your post, that Assad is just a guy defending his country, when hes murdered people in the thousands not just in his country by the way, Lebanon included. You seem to have forgotten how the war started.
Soldato
- Joined
- 9 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 4,698
- Location
- Wiltshire
Like I said before there is a serious case to be made for the intervention in Iraq you're just not interested in listening to it or disagree with the premise.
Saddam was a war criminal and was brought to justice, sorry if this fact upsets you.
Of course they would have been beaten by the Syrian and Russian armies who retook the rest of the country. The US is now occupying those areas which just so happens to be where Syria's oil is and refuses to leave. You have no problems with foreign militaries invading other countries with no legal basis.
Nothing yet as it hasn't turned into a major offensive - looks like they are testing the waters. Last year the Syrians and Russians proclaimed loudly repeatedly they were going to retake all of Idlib and had their forces positioned to do so which brought on hysteria in our press ("Something must be done!!!") and from our gov who made it clear there would be a military response in the event of a convenient CW attack.
The Russians and Syrians backed down as a result not wanting a wider war.
There's only been a minor offensive so far and already our gov has said they will respond if there's a CW attack. I expect the hysteria and threats to increase exactly like last August if the Syrians and Russians try to take back the rest of Idlib.
If they do cue the CW attack with videos coming from the WHs and then there will be clamours to 'do something' like after Douma where they launched 100 cruise missiles at Syrian bases before even the OPCW had investigated.
Ah, the Guardian which for the last 20 years hasn't seen a UK-backed war it didn't like. I've read that hack job before going on about 'dinsiformation' and so on. It's not 'disinformation' that they were founded by an ex-British Army officer, are funded by the same countries promoting regime change, only operate in areas controlled by jihadis and openly call for military action against the Syrian gov. Strange 'humanitarians' calling for bombing.
The declassified US intelligence report I posted earlier shows that the Syrian opposition was primarily Islamist from the outset. You can read in the US embassy cables from Wikileaks about the regime change plans the US and pals have had for Syria for years.
No-one's saying Assad is 'good', but what goes on within Syrian borders is nothing to do with us. Who appointed us 'world police'?
Back to the point:
Idlib is a part of Syria and is run by Al Qaeda, correct? A foreign power, us, is attempting to stop them from retaking it, correct?
You don't think the Syrian Government has the right to retake territory occupied by Al Qaeda?
You are OK with risking war with Russia to protect Al Qaeda? Russian forces are embedded with the Syrian army so our gov's comments are extremely reckless. The Russians made it clear last year after the staged attack in Douma that if any Russian forces were hit by UK, US, French missiles they would attack where ever they were launched from. That doesn't give you pause for thought?
Last edited: