I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that one as we have both made our best arguments
ISIL, ISIS, Daesh discussion thread.
- Thread starter RoboCod
- Start date
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that one as we have both made our best arguments
Multiple different on the ground sources. Where'd the 'authentic' document above come from? Why would the US declassify a document that seemingly condemns them?
Douma was controlled by the Saudi-funded 'Army of Islam' at the time of the attack and reading the OPCW's reports on it they rely heavily on evidence and testimony from the Syrian Civil Defence (SCD) otherwise known as the White Helmets. As I said to Johno above the White Helmets are a UK creation so a dubious source.
People from those videos, including medical staff, turned up safe and sound and said the whole thing was a hoax. They were brought to the OPCW at the Hague, but our press showed little interest.
https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2018-04-28/the-west-closes-its-ears-to-douma-testimony/
The document I talk about was released under a freedom of information request. I agree it doesn't make sense for them to release something so damning so presumably someone messed up.
Here it is anyway. Again, largely ignored by our press as it doesn't fit the agenda.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=2ahUKEwiQ0_-qlpPiAhW2TxUIHTogDYYQFjAAegQIAhAC&url=https://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Pg.-291-Pgs.-287-293-JW-v-DOD-and-State-14-812-DOD-Release-2015-04-10-final-version11.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2IqGB08etTb5bApFe1FWPA
My initial response:
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that one as we have both made our best arguments
P.S. On reflection, no, let's not agree to disagree given the gravity of what was done to Iraq. It's akin to let's agree to disagree on the Holocaust.
You are excusing the greatest war crime of our generation. The US/UK and its satellites attacked an already weak country that posed zero threat to anyone based on lies that led to the deaths of at a minimum (which is a very conservative estimate) 600K people.
You talk about 'genocide'? Yeah, let's talk about that.
We attacked a country that had already endured over a decade of genocidal sanctions in the '90s that left over half a million kids dead. HALF A ******* MILLION. Here's the lovely Madeline Albright justifying it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RM0uvgHKZe8
The UN officials that were in charge of the sanctions regime during that time resigned as it amounted to 'genocide' due to basic medical supplies being denied to the country. Not my words, but Denis Halliday of the UN.
Between 1 million and 1.5 million Iraqis have died from malnutrition or inadequate health care resulting from economic sanctions, said Halliday. The U.N. Security Council imposed economic and military sanctions against Iraq during the Gulf War to prevent that country from rebuilding "weapons of mass destruction," including nuclear and biological warfare.
"For me what is tragic, in addition to the tragedy of Iraq itself, is the fact that the United Nations Security Council member states ... are maintaining a program of economic sanctions deliberately, knowingly killing thousands of Iraqis each month. And that definition fits genocide," Halliday said.
Let that sink in. He ran the sanctions regime and this was before the second Iraq war.
You defend this? What the **** is wrong with you? Do you just go along with whatever the government says every time as that's the impression I get.
'Genocide' seems to be the trigger of military action for you. OK, the UK & US have carried out genocide in Iraq according to a senior UN figure.
Surely that means Russia and China can invade the UK and install their puppet? Isn't that the way it works?
Last edited:
If your neighbour was torturing a dog in the garden next to you? Would you get involved? I fully understand where you are coming from though, the problem is, how long do you leave it before you step in and say "no, this is wrong" it's a very difficult situation. And, i'm not talking about just Syria here, i'm speaking generally.
What if the reports of neighbours torturing dogs come from proven liars that have already claimed 'X' neighbour is torturing their dog numerous times and that the neighbours must do something? Upon doing something it is found that 'X' hadn't actually done anything as was claimed?
We've been here many times before.
Iraq was based on lies.
Libya was based on lies.
Syria is based on lies unless you want to believe UK-created and funded groups like the White Helmets who parade about in brand new uniforms with English words on their backs in an Arabic-speaking country as if that makes sense.
This is all besides the point given that the only legitimate reason to attack Syria is in self-defence or with a UN Security Council resolution. The UK has neither.
Eh that is meaningless - surplus clothing or even misdirection isn't uncommon in warzones - you'll find plenty of munitions used by both sides with languages from all over the world but doesn't mean they were sourced or provided by whoever's language is on the tin and TBH assuming for sake of argument that the White Helmets were UK created with backing from MI6 or whatever do you think they've overlook something like that if it was such a giveaway?
One thing ~30 years of experience has taught me when it comes to the Middle East is that it is rarely black and white and the truth almost always lies between the two (or more) sides of the coin.
They didn't overlook it at all as it was done on purpose given their activities are aimed at a western audience to justify regime change.
You think brand new, not army surplus, uniforms that say 'WHITE HELMETS' in English is normal in an Arabic country?
It's a fact they were founded and are funded by the British, American and Canadian governments amongst others. Wow, what a coincidence that they are the same governments advocating for regime change in Syria...
Feel free to Google away to prove me wrong on this.
Sorry, but this isn't one of those cases where the truth lies somewhere in the middle. This is a blatant regime change operation by western powers against yet another small middle eastern country that has a foreign policy independent of the West in an energy-rich region.
Hmmmm, sounds familiar...something coming to my mind...Iraq...WMDs...oil. Nevermind, can't remember. It was so long ago...
Last edited:
English is used extensively throughout the world, organisations on both/every side of the conflict have backers overseas as well. Unfortunately very little in the way of google street maps in Syria but take any random place in say nearby Lebanon and https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@34.0...UjiW4vphmZl1vU1THYORN!2e10!3e11!7i5120!8i2560
There are many organisations out there, of native origin not western imports, that function almost entirely in English first including on their uniforms, etc. and native language/Arabic second or side by side.
EDIT: You will also find French used quite extensively as well (some parts more than others). Don't forget that the UK and France were heavily involved in the Middle East/Africa with many parts under their control/mandate through the 19th and parts of the 20th century so a lot of that remains.
For someone who corrected me earlier in saying they were sitting on the fence when it came to everything concerning Syria you sure do seem keen to support the narrative maintained by the British government and the groups it has created ignoring all evidence presented to you.
Yeah, sure, a 'humanitarian' organisation founded by an ex-British army officer and funded by the British government puts the English name of their organisation on their backs in an Arabic-speaking country when they could have used Arabic for...reasons...
Yes, you go down the colonialism route but it was France that was the power with history in Syria, not the UK. It makes no sense other than as a propaganda tool.
A straightforward question here: you don't see anything dodgy about them being founded by a bloody British ex-army officer and being funded by the British? Really?
Last edited:
Or another random one - middle of Egypt a company with both English and Egyptian branding used https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@29.9...100-k-no-pi-10-ya229-ro-0-fo100!7i8704!8i4352
Sorry but seeing English wording on equipment or uniform, etc. doesn't mean anything in that part of the world it isn't unusual at all even with entirely domestic organisations.
I'm keen to try and maintain some objectivity - you are letting confirmation bias get the better of you.
THEY...WERE...FOUNDED...BY...EX...BRITISH...ARMY...AND...ARE...FUNDED...BY...THE...BRITISH...STATE.
So what? I said for sake of argument lets assume as much - that doesn't change the fact that the use of English language including on their uniform is zero evidence of anything in that respect - it is infact very very common in that part of the world.
So what? It shows they are a creation of the UK.
I really don't know what else to say here. I can't even get people on this thread to agree that the UK protecting jihadis in Syria is a bad idea and now I have someone that thinks an organisation being founded and funded by the British doesn't in any way compromise their impartiality.
Makes me despair. People just lap this propaganda ******** up.
Not it doesn't - there might be other evidence that shows they are created in the UK but having English on their uniform does not mean anything even in that part of the world - almost every aid organisation operating in Syria domestic or foreign has their name in English, usually but not always alongside Arabic or another ME language for instance https://media.ifrc.org/ifrc/what-we-do/disaster-and-crisis-management/syria/p-syr1235/
And it doesn't take 2 seconds of googling to find white helmet uniforms that have Arabic inscriptions as well as English - unless you lap up the Russian propaganda pictures where they purposefully use camera angles that only show the English and mask the Arabic bits (that isn't to imply that they aren't funded or whatever by the British state).
As an aside the UK has been blowing mud huts in countries in the Middle East to oblivion using aircraft for over 100 years... there is much much more than regime change never mind oil/resources going on - people get so hung up on the Gulf wars but that is but a spec in the bigger picture.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 9 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 4,698
- Location
- Wiltshire
The guardian is a left leaning paper that definitely isnt pro war, then theres this https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-eva-bartletts-claims-about-syrian-children
Well theyre not going to operate in area controlled by Syria are they when theyre pulling people out of buildings bombed by the syrians and russians.
And I don't disagree that the sanctions only harmed the Iraqi people, it was a mistake to leave saddam in power in the 90s.
I think Syria is a perfect example of what happens when we don't get involved in a revolution until AFTER its started, that would have been Iraqs fate also, the regime was going to implode at some point, everyone has an AK under the bed and theres sectarian divide and then of course theres jihadi groups who take any opportunity to cause mayhem and implement their own rule.
Would you take that same view in the case of Kosovo and Sierra Leone?
Well, affiliated groups. I don't know, lets wait and see shall we seeing as its on going.
This old record player sure does get stuck a lot.
Oh no you didn't. You'll cause it to melt down into a BSOD or something.
Looks like it.
I hadn't realised the motivations of the USA and UK were altruistic. I'd always thought that was an opportunistic justification. We can expect to see US and UK action against Saudi Arabia shortly then? Brunei? China? Israel? Or at least, you know, a cessation of trade and selling weapons? You'd think that would be the minimum now that we know USA foreign policy is based on altruism?
And to forestall any response along the lines of "it doesn't matter what the motivation is if it gets action", yes - it does. Because the actions are based on the motivations. E.g. seizing of Iraqi oil, funding of terrorist groups like Al Quaeda, false flags, assassination of elected leaders, blocking of local labour and companies in favour of US ones like Haliburton, etc. Tell me if the motive was altruism such things would be done. I dare you. Clearly the country of Libya was destroyed and its assets seized to help its people.
Seriously - "neighbour torturing a dog" may be the most simplistic and dumb analogy I've heard all year. Let me extend it for you: "If you saw your neighbour torturing a dog would you blow up their house, kill their family and steal and keep anything of value they owned? And would you then take up torturing those same dogs yourself once they were out of the way?"
Is it your contention that a group is founded by people from the British military, funded by the British military but does not service British goverment and military goals? Or do you think that Britain does not have a goal of overthrowing Assad / Syrian government? We can examine either of your potential hypotheses but the latter would be most hilarious.