OK give me a straight and simple answer - yes or no - had the rebels at Douma agreed to surrender by the 1st of April as you proposed earlier on?
ISIL, ISIS, Daesh discussion thread.
- Thread starter RoboCod
- Start date
OK give me a straight and simple answer - yes or no - had the rebels at Douma agreed to surrender by the 1st of April as you proposed earlier on?
Why do you continue to argue about something you agree was staged? I don't get it. Is it just because you can't stand agreeing with me?
Because it is immaterial to what I'm saying whether Assad did it or not. I'm talking about the validity of certain scenarios that are put forward as evidence - it is still important that they are presented truthfully. And if you are right it doesn't hurt you to answer the question.
What's the point in arguing about hypotheticals? You agree it was staged as do I...move on.
You are just arguing for the sake of an argument. Goodnight.
Yeah run away. It matters because the distortion or misrepresentation of truth is what has enabled many of the things you rail against in the first place - you can't really take the high ground over things like Iraq while prepared to push any narrative indiscriminately that has an angle that can be spun to support your position - such as trying to make out that the use of English writing on uniforms in Syria having any meaning alone or in conjunction with other evidence as to who is behind the organisation when it is a common feature all over the world including the depth of Syria by organisations both domestic and foreign.
They seem to be supporting their points to me.
Still not being picked up by the corporate press even though the implications are huge. The Russian media like Sputnik & RT of course are pushing it and if the Russian gov starts to do the same I don't see how they can maintain their silence any longer.
I expect the response will be to shoot the messenger by demonising the group that published the leak as well as diminishing the standing of the report's author. Whoever leaked this is advised against going for walks in the woods like David Kelly.
Caitlin Johnstone, an Australian blogger who is quite interesting, sums it up better than I could:
"As near as I can tell the kindest possible interpretation of these revelations is that an expert who has worked with the OPCW for decades gave an engineering assessment which directly contradicted the official findings of the OPCW on Douma, but OPCW officials didn’t find his assessment convincing for whatever reason and hid every trace of it from public view. That’s the least sinister possibility: that a sharp dissent from a distinguished expert within the OPCW’s own investigation was completely hidden from the public because the people calling the shots at the OPCW didn’t want to confuse us with a perspective they didn’t find credible. This most charitable interpretation possible is damningly unacceptable by itself, because the public should obviously be kept informed of any possible evidence which may contradict the reasons they were fed to justify an act of war by powerful governments.
And there are many far less charitable interpretations. It is not in the slightest bit unreasonable to speculate that the ostensibly independent OPCW in fact serves the interests of the US-centralized power alliance, and that it suppressed the Henderson report because it pokes holes in the narratives that are used to demonize a longtime target for imperialist regime change. That is a perfectly reasonable possibility for us to wonder about, and the onus is now on the OPCW to prove to us that it is not the case.
Either way, the fact that the OPCW kept Henderson’s findings from receiving not a whisper of attention severely undermines the organization’s credibility, not just with regard to Douma but with regard to everything, including the establishment Syria narrative as a whole and the Skripal case in the UK. Everything the OPCW has ever concluded about alleged chemical usage around the world is now subject to very legitimate skepticism."
https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/...ial-syria-narrative-is-authentic-fbcbf7ef281a
I expect the response will be to shoot the messenger by demonising the group that published the leak as well as diminishing the standing of the report's author. Whoever leaked this is advised against going for walks in the woods like David Kelly.
Caitlin Johnstone, an Australian blogger who is quite interesting, sums it up better than I could:
"As near as I can tell the kindest possible interpretation of these revelations is that an expert who has worked with the OPCW for decades gave an engineering assessment which directly contradicted the official findings of the OPCW on Douma, but OPCW officials didn’t find his assessment convincing for whatever reason and hid every trace of it from public view. That’s the least sinister possibility: that a sharp dissent from a distinguished expert within the OPCW’s own investigation was completely hidden from the public because the people calling the shots at the OPCW didn’t want to confuse us with a perspective they didn’t find credible. This most charitable interpretation possible is damningly unacceptable by itself, because the public should obviously be kept informed of any possible evidence which may contradict the reasons they were fed to justify an act of war by powerful governments.
And there are many far less charitable interpretations. It is not in the slightest bit unreasonable to speculate that the ostensibly independent OPCW in fact serves the interests of the US-centralized power alliance, and that it suppressed the Henderson report because it pokes holes in the narratives that are used to demonize a longtime target for imperialist regime change. That is a perfectly reasonable possibility for us to wonder about, and the onus is now on the OPCW to prove to us that it is not the case.
Either way, the fact that the OPCW kept Henderson’s findings from receiving not a whisper of attention severely undermines the organization’s credibility, not just with regard to Douma but with regard to everything, including the establishment Syria narrative as a whole and the Skripal case in the UK. Everything the OPCW has ever concluded about alleged chemical usage around the world is now subject to very legitimate skepticism."
https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/...ial-syria-narrative-is-authentic-fbcbf7ef281a
I don't have a simple answer to that - like many things in the Middle East rarely is anything as black and white as those on any one side try to make them out to be. The Syrian regime doesn't have my support any more than I agree with the way the West is approaching Syria.
What a surprise. I bet they are telling the truth this time...
So here's the lie, then. You concede (you pretty much have to) that there's a high chance of it being a false flag. But are okay with it being used as a justification - legal, moral and public - for military action. You quibble with "it depends" but my question was very clear - would you oppose any military actions in response to it? You don't. You profess open-mindedness but would accept the huge wrong of a false flag being used to justify for military action. We live in a democracy. As do the people of the USA. Democracy cannot function if the public are not informed. To even countenance the idea that it's okay to lie to your people to justify war, or to lie under International Law to try and make it legal, is a great wrong. You've used argumentation in this thread, as others said, in a very partisan way to try and claim either could be the truth. But when it comes down to it, you'd be okay with justifying military response based on fact. Moral people do not say "it's possible they did it, lets attack them". Your practical choices do not line up with your professed position.
The problem is your question - I oppose direct military action in response to a lie or distortion of the truth but opposing any military action that might be in response to it (it being the scenario you are leading your question with) is less easy - your question presents a catch all situation that can be used to cover things that I wouldn't intend in a short answer and risks me coming across in support of the Syrian regime with a short polarised answer which I'm certainly not - even though I believe Assad started out with good intentions (a lot of the current problems, outside of where it involves direct foreign agendas, stems out of Syria opening their arms to people displaced in other wars across the middle east leading to problems boiling over which seems to have been lost sight of especially when people want to pin it all on the meddling West).
EDIT: You seem to have the same problem as EvilSooty in allowing for the fact that someone can agree with the conclusion without accepting all parts of the argument and that just because someone disagrees with some parts of the argument doesn't mean they disagree with the conclusion and/or won't allow it out of fear it will undermine the conclusion.
Last edited:
But I didn't ask if you would or would not support any given military action. I didn't ask if you support or don't support any particular group. I very specifically asked if you would oppose any military action in response to it. I.e. if you would accept it as a justification for military action. Given you accept there's a high probability that it's a false flag, why would you possibly accept it as a reason for any action other than simple investigation to establish the truth of it (something the USA has made exceedingly difficult, btw). To accept that it very likely could be a false flag but to accept it as a reason for military action is not a moral position in any way. It's not a "gotcha" question. Except in so far that it leads directly to acknowledging that it should not be such a justification and therefore rejecting US military action based on it.
It does seem a bit shocking that the police escorted them all to his location so they can have a riot on some quiet residential street.
I mean...just looking at that mob you can see the intent, they are NOT peaceful protesters. There would probably have been deaths if they got through the police lines.
A huge mistake by the police. What they have done is force the locals to pick Tommy's side for their own safety and the whole thing just escalated.
I mean...just looking at that mob you can see the intent, they are NOT peaceful protesters. There would probably have been deaths if they got through the police lines.
A huge mistake by the police. What they have done is force the locals to pick Tommy's side for their own safety and the whole thing just escalated.
Last edited:
I feel you are driving the conversation in a direction where a simple answer could seem to support or conflict with a wider opinion or position than intended. Being specific with my wording no I don't support a scenario where the pretence for military action was a Douma like false flag scenario.
As before was it ever established who denied them access to investigate Douma? I've never seen anything but conflicting reports on that aspect.
I am very specifically trying to get your direct answer to this. And yes - for the very obvious (and I already said why) purpose of comparing your argumentation with your practical beliefs. I didn't ask if you would support military action in response to an established false flag, nor a "Douma-like scenario". I asked in response to these actual, specific accusations.
OPCW inspectors were invited in by Syria and present in the country but couldn't go to the site immediately because it had just been bombed by the USA. The USA and UK claim that the inspectors could go there and that they were delayed by Russia deliberately which Russia denies. However, if the USA is firing missiles into somewhere (as they had ten days before and with no guarantee there weren't more on the way), it's unreasonable to expect weapons inspectors to being tramping around the site working. The inspectors did try to get there shortly after but were chased off by a mob at the first site and came under fire at site #2 so they withdrew back to Damascus again.
I think in some cases you are seeing as my practical beliefs things I'm expecting EvilSooty to be consistent on with his position that aren't necessarily positions that are important for me as I'm not making the same arguments.
Douma was not bombed by the US - the only people who carried out any airstrikes in that vicinity in that timeframe were the Russians - there was a supposed second round of strikes after the US cruise missile strikes but later claimed to be a false alarm by Syria.