ISIL, ISIS, Daesh discussion thread.

[EvilSooty]

It's amazing how you miss the point entirely.

It's now clear from the leaked OPCW report I mentioned earlier that we acted as an air force for jihadis last year in Douma based on lies concoted by a British-founded and funded group, the White Helmets.

Douma was controlled by the Saudi-backed Army of Islam at the time who are indistinguishable from ISIS. You're fine with them as allies?

Now it's being repeated again in Idlib where Al Qaeda (remember them?) is making allegations of CW attacks and the US and our gov are makkng more threats. The White Helmets are there too no doubt getting another pack of lies ready..

You support our military fighting for Al Qaeda and other jihadis?

You support risking war with Russia protecting Al Qaeda in Idlib?

What right have we to be in Syria again?

Unlike where we acted as a jihadi airforce in Libya in 2011 Syria has an ally that can hit us back hard.

But yeah, I must be a muppet for objecting to our gov being allied with Al Qaeda....something...something Stalin.

 

[RoboCod]

So apparently bombing someone suddenly makes you allies with everyone else who is their enemy. Ha, and it has the audacity to accuse others of a black and white simple view of the world. Oh the ironing

 

[EvilSooty]

So apparently bombing someone suddenly makes you allies with everyone else who is their enemy. Ha, and it has the audacity to accuse others of a black and white simple view of the world. Oh the ironing

If they aren't allies why do our military actions and threats have the effect of protecting them? Do explain why every time Syria tries to take back territory in Idlib from at least 10,000 Al Qaeda and other jihadi loons that our gov steps in to threaten Syria if they aren't our allies?

Why is the British-founded and funded White Helmets embedded with Al Qaeda in Idlib as they were with the Army of Islam in Douma where they took part in manufacturing a false flag?

In both instances this British creation funded by the British state is permitted to operate in an area under the control of jihadis no different than the 7/7 attackers or the nutters that went on a rampage in London recently. Gee, I wonder why...

Any thoughts on that? Another arguer for the sake of arguing...

This is pretty basic stuff. If you can't agree, like Rroff, that helping jihadis is a bad thing I don't know what to say to you.

Your ability to ignore reality is impressive.

 

[EvilSooty]

Still nothing in the corporate press (besides Hitchens in the Mail on Sunday) about the leak on the 13th May of the internal OPCW report showing we bombed Syria last April on the basis of a chemical weapons false flag to help jihadis, yet here's the Guardian immediately reporting an unconfirmed dubious claims from HTS (Al Qaeda renamed) that Syria used chemical weapons yet again on Sunday.

https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2...mical-weapon-attack?__twitter_impression=true

It was also the first question at PMQs today.

https://twitter.com/ClarkeMicah/status/1131156839507345408?s=20

So our dreadful press and government give no attention to a genuine leak from the OPCW that completely contradicts all this chemical weapons nonsense yet immediately report on the word of Al Qaeda with nothing supporting it?

If it fits the narrative it gets reported on, if it doesn't straight into the memory hole.

 

[Rroff]

If you can't agree, like Rroff, that helping jihadis is a bad thing I don't know what to say to you.

There you go again, nothing in what I have posted reflects a position on helping or not helping jihadis but you use twisted logic to infer it.

that we acted as an air force for jihadis last year in Douma

How do you mean? limited missile strikes against supposed chemical warfare targets and the odd plane destroyed on the ground is hardly acting like an air force for jihadis unless those jihadis were under direct threat of chemical warfare and 99% of our (British) air strikes tasked in Syria have been against ISIS targets - we haven't been bombing frontline Syrian let alone Russian assets which would be like acting as an air force for the jihadis.

If they aren't allies why do our military actions and threats have the effect of protecting them? Do explain why every time Syria tries to take back territory in Idlib from at least 10,000 Al Qaeda and other jihadi loons that our gov steps in to threaten Syria if they aren't our allies?

Why is the British-founded and funded White Helmets embedded with Al Qaeda in Idlib as they were with the Army of Islam in Douma where they took part in manufacturing a false flag?

In both instances this British creation funded by the British state is permitted to operate in an area under the control of jihadis no different than the 7/7 attackers or the nutters that went on a rampage in London recently. Gee, I wonder why...

The problem is you've ignored every other reason for them being there because it doesn't suit your narrative - now I'm not saying you are wrong and I'm not comfortable with the correlation but these factors amongst others are also true:

-The jihadis in those areas are outnumbered often more than 10:1 by civilians
-The jihadis frequently make use of civilians as human shields even strapping them to their vehicles and forcing them to allow their men to live amongst them, etc.
-Both Syria (and Iran) and Russia have actual proven records for poor protection of civilians and high civilian collateral in military actions in these kind of scenarios - though it is something Russia has made significant attempts to improve on post the last war with Georgia.

So you'd need to go a lot further to establish there is a connection there beyond simple appearance of correlation and given the broken logic you've brought to this thread several times you aren't inspiring me.

So our dreadful press and government give no attention to a genuine leak from the OPCW that completely contradicts all this chemical weapons nonsense yet immediately report on the word of Al Qaeda with nothing supporting it?

It is certainly interesting the complete silence when it isn't what they want people to see.

If it fits the narrative it gets reported on, if it doesn't straight into the memory hole.

You can't really get upset about that when you do the exact same thing the other way around - seeming under the justification of having the truth or the high ground or something removes you of an obligation to do so. Like your posts in the Trump thread where you insist there wasn't an uprising while using sources to back you up that also clearly state there was an uprising.

 

[EvilSooty]

I had posted a longer rebuttal to Rroff's rubbish, but have caught myself on as it's a waste of time.

If he can't even agree that bombing Syria on the basis of a false flag he agreed occurred in Douma last year was wrong there's no point discussing anything further.

I haven't got the energy to repeat myself to someone who just likes arguing for the sake of it.

Anyway ignoring Rroff, here's May threatening Syria for attacking Al Qaeda in Idlib today in PMQs for another alleged CW attack with no evidence backing it up.

I'm noticing a pattern here.

https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/...-theresa-may-chemical-weapons-response-syria/

 

[Rroff]

If he can't even agree that bombing Syria on the basis of a false flag he agreed occurred in Douma last year was wrong there's no point discussing anything further.

I told you that I didn't support military action based on the pretence of a false flag attack in a scenario like Douma - I know it isn't the answer you want because it can't be used in the way you want to use it but it is perfectly clear what I am saying and the limitations I'm placing on it to prevent you using warped logic to discredit other things I've said that you won't and can't accept the truth of.

I refer you and any other reader to this post https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/posts/32731448 as further evidence that you will happily distort or partially use the truth for your own narrative which is no better than the actions of those you rail against.

Meanwhile you still haven't answered why if the rebels in Douma had surrendered as you insist that Syrian government forces launched a massive attack against them.

I haven't got the energy to repeat myself to someone who just likes arguing for the sake of it.

Or you know you could examine your own motives in the light of what I'm saying - it isn't really difficult to acknowledge things like the fact that English writing is used extensively throughout the world, even the depth of Syria, and isn't in any way significant as to who is behind something.

But the truth is you want to push a narrative even if it means distorting the truth and passing things off as fact that are circumstantial - I'd care less but you'd rather run away from those points or try and discredit people that point them out rather than acknowledge and modify what you are saying.

 

[Dis86]

Bah big deal Assad got bombed you Muppets are making out like his mother Teresa, honesty I don't know how you get so upset that his assets got bombed.

He is a war criminal, dictator and mostly responsible for the mess his country is in.

Doesn't matter how bad his enemies are, he is still a monster.

Just like Hitler and Stalin had problems with each other, both were still monsters.

Points that people in here keep seeming to miss. He had his troops murder peaceful protestors. That's how the whole thing started. Him.

 

[Rroff]

Points that people in here keep seeming to miss. He had his troops murder peaceful protestors. That's how the whole thing started. Him.

It is debatable how much the West might have influenced events in Syria, organising opposition even maybe false flag events to trigger flashpoints, etc. for their own agendas that aren't in the best interests of the people of Syria but people like EvilSooty would rather try and erase the fact that Syrian government forces were out there repressing protests, many of these genuine protests, in some cases murdering peaceful protestors and other factors like the fact that a significant number of Syrian army personnel defected in the early days of the unrest (due to sectarian differences and the approach of hardline elements with ties to or under the command of the power sects) which isn't something that can realistically be engineered by outside influence and a pointer of internal troubles because it means they can't simply dump the whole lot on the evil West.

 

[Amnesia]

You would think anyone with half a brain would learn from the mistakes of Iraq.

The lies the deception, believing they are improving Syria by invasion but nope. We truly get people this stupid who cant spot the re-run.

 

[Dis86]

You would think anyone with half a brain would learn from the mistakes of Iraq.

The lies the deception, believing they are improving Syria by invasion but nope. We truly get people this stupid who cant spot the re-run.

Well no, that was the point. They tried to stay out and all people did was whinge about allowing human rights abuses and letting Assad literally get away with murder. The problem is the West is damned either way.

 

[Rroff]

You would think anyone with half a brain would learn from the mistakes of Iraq.

The lies the deception, believing they are improving Syria by invasion but nope. We truly get people this stupid who cant spot the re-run.

We aren't likely to see a re-run in terms of an Iraq like invasion of Syria - none the less Russia's presence there makes it a tad awkward. While the US has a presence there bordering Iraq it is a fairly limited occupation unlikely to be used as a beachhead and chosen for its defensibility. The West might have helped to ferment trouble there for their own purposes but it would be lies to say Syria would be a stable and happy place if the West wasn't involved.

Iran on the other hand has all the hallmarks of the build upto the Gulf war. Unlike Iraq however it would be far less of a pushover - though I suspect if it did come to it the Iranian elite would throw their troops to the fodder and then run rather than organise any kind of defence of the country.

 

[Johno please?]

You would think anyone with half a brain would learn from the mistakes of Iraq.

The lies the deception, believing they are improving Syria by invasion but nope. We truly get people this stupid who cant spot the re-run.

Is there ever a case for intervention in your opinion?

I mean, look at rwanda and darfur. Absolute genocide and we sat back and watched, (well the french certainly watched they had a front row seat) good job we didn't just watch in Bosnia, took them a few thousand muslims to be murdered before they did anything though.

This is a good article by Hitchens, regarding Iraq hes makes valid points https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2003/11/restating-the-case-for-intervention-in-iraq.html

 

[EvilSooty]

I told you that I didn't support military action based on the pretence of a false flag attack in a scenario like Douma - I know it isn't the answer you want because it can't be used in the way you want to use it but it is perfectly clear what I am saying and the limitations I'm placing on it to prevent you using warped logic to discredit other things I've said that you won't and can't accept the truth of.

"Douma-like scenario", yes, but you refuse to say it was wrong in the ACTUAL Douma scenario over and over again. Hence why you are a time waster. Your word salad justifications only make sense to you.You can't even condemn something as blatantly illegal and awful as that.

Meanwhile you still haven't answered why if the rebels in Douma had surrendered as you insist that Syrian government forces launched a massive attack against them.

We have gone over this repeatedly. Your arguments were weak then and haven't aged with time - please see my earlier posts referencing British generals agreeing with me and how you don't even have the brains to realise your acceptance of Douma being a false flag undermines your point.

You accept it's a false flag yet still peddle this unconvincing drivel? Time waster yet again.

Or you know you could examine your own motives in the light of what I'm saying - it isn't really difficult to acknowledge things like the fact that English writing is used extensively throughout the world, even the depth of Syria, and isn't in any way significant as to who is behind something.

Still banging on about this as if it's of any importance? Again, you already accept by implication that the White Helmets are discredited as that's where the evidence for the staged attack comes from. They are discredited by your own admission yet you are still going on about a minor point I made completely ignoring over and over again that they are British-founded and funded? Time waster yet again.

But the truth is you want to push a narrative even if it means distorting the truth and passing things off as fact that are circumstantial - I'd care less but you'd rather run away from those points or try and discredit people that point them out rather than acknowledge and modify what you are saying.

Run away? I have engaged with you over and over again to no end. I posted a proper reply to you then thought what am I doing? You would deny water was wet for the sake of it.

Let's go through your unsurprisingly awful arguments above, shall we?

1. The UK isn't acting as an airforce of the jihadis as minimal damage in Douma? Douma gave a greenlight to every jihadi to stage false flags which they are doing now. Without last August's threats and the current threats Idlib would have been retaken by Syria last year. I have to explain this to you?

2. The UK cares about protecting civilians in Idlib? What? Have you been asleep for the past two decades? I'm not going to educate you on the ludicrousness of such a suggestion.

At this point you are like an ape flinging **** at the wall. Your arguments are so bad it's tiring to engage at all.

 

[EvilSooty]

It is debatable how much the West might have influenced events in Syria, organising opposition even maybe false flag events to trigger flashpoints, etc. for their own agendas that aren't in the best interests of the people of Syria but people like EvilSooty would rather try and erase the fact that Syrian government forces were out there repressing protests, many of these genuine protests, in some cases murdering peaceful protestors and other factors like the fact that a significant number of Syrian army personnel defected in the early days of the unrest (due to sectarian differences and the approach of hardline elements with ties to or under the command of the power sects) which isn't something that can realistically be engineered by outside influence and a pointer of internal troubles because it means they can't simply dump the whole lot on the evil West.

And what does any of that have to do with us? Who appointed us world police?

 

[EvilSooty]

You would think anyone with half a brain would learn from the mistakes of Iraq.

The lies the deception, believing they are improving Syria by invasion but nope. We truly get people this stupid who cant spot the re-run.

Yep. It's amazing really.

We are literally on the side of Al Qaeda here.

 

[EvilSooty]

Well no, that was the point. They tried to stay out and all people did was whinge about allowing human rights abuses and letting Assad literally get away with murder. The problem is the West is damned either way.

So join the side of Al Qaeda utilising false flags? And 'who' whinged about human rights abuses? Our government and press were all for regime change from the very beginning.

It has nothing at all to do with us.

 

[Rroff]

We have gone over this repeatedly. Your arguments were weak then and haven't aged with time - please see my earlier posts referencing British generals agreeing with me and how you don't even have the brains to realise your acceptance of Douma being a false flag undermines your point.

You accept it's a false flag yet still peddle this unconvincing drivel? Time waster yet again.

This is what I'm complaining about - you are just distorting and dodging answering and now resorting to ridicule and insults to try and avoid answering something really simple - either you were wrong with your claim that the rebels had surrendered or Syrian government forces launched a massive attack on a group that had surrendered... it isn't hard to acknowledge.

Run away? I have engaged with you over and over again to no end. I posted a proper reply to you then though what am I doing? You would deny water was wet for the sake of it.

Any time the conversation has come to place where you are cornered you run away and hope it goes away and when it doesn't come back with ridicule and insults.

Let's go through your unsurprisingly awful arguments above, shall we?

1. The UK isn't acting as an airforce of the jihadis as minimal damage in Douma? Douma gave a greenlight to every jihadi to stage false flags which they are doing now. Without last August's threats and the current threats Idlib would have been retaken by Syria last year. I have to explain this to you?

2. The UK cares about protecting civilians in Idlib? What? Have you been asleep for the past two decades? I'm not going to educate you on the ludicrousness of such a suggestion.

OK then where is the UK acting like an airforce for the jihadis?

(EDIT: Infact I will help you out here - the UK has not been involved in a way that would deny Syrian/Russian air assets access to rebel areas and has not been involved in using aircraft or missiles against the frontline forces that threaten the rebels - the only UK involvements have been strikes against ISIS positions and against supposed chemical warfare facilities - which is only a threat to the jihadis if they are actually at risk from chemical warfare!)

I never stated a position on whether the UK cares about protecting civilians in Idlib or anywhere else I only pointed out that you are pushing one narrow explanation of a correlation without acknowledging and discounting or accounting for the other perfectly reasonable possible explanations.

 

[RoboCod]

I haven't got the energy to repeat myself

If only.

 

[Rroff]

If only.

He seems to find plenty of energy to band insults at people when they won't just swallow his narrative unquestioned.