ISIL, ISIS, Daesh discussion thread.

[EvilSooty]

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

I have always said their situation was militarily hopeless and on the brink of surrender as it was. Negotiations broke down and fighting recommenced, and? Defeat was inevitable. You admit it was staged so Assad DIDN'T use chemical weapons. I don't even get where you're going with this. Your argument is that bad and it being staged undermines it even more.

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

How about, you know, when they launched cruise missiles at Syria on the basis of lies by the Army of Islam and the White Helmets? That didn't happen? Such an insane action gives plausbility to the fact they will do it again or worse in Idlib hence why they backed down in their August offensive. The same trick is happening again now.

Idlib would have been retaken now, but for US, UK, French action. Are you arguing otherwise? So it clearly benefits jihadis. This is plain as day, but not for you apparently.

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.

Then why a long paragraph about the civilians in Idlib if that's not your argument? Do you even know what you are arguing here?

Let's keep this basic for you:

Idlib is full of thousands of Al Qaeda, correct?
Idlib is Syrian territory, correct?
The US, UK & France have no legal basis to act in Syria, correct?
In August 2018 Syria & Russia backed down under pressure from those countries over their Idlib offensive, correct?
Because of this Al Qaeda remained in control when otherwise they would have been defeated, correct?
A new offensive is in the early stages now and the same threats are being made by the same countries, correct?

Who benefits from all this then, Rroff? Give me another one of your affected non-committal word salads meaning nothing.

 

[RoboCod]

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

Given its post count and history, I suspect it's either an old member who was permabanned and reregistered or a spam bot

<200 posts, on a computer forum, and all so very passionately presented. Suspect.

 

[Rroff]

I have always said their situation was militarily hopeless and on the brink of surrender as it was. Negotiations broke down and fighting recommenced, and? Defeat was inevitable. You admit it was staged so Assad DIDN'T use chemical weapons. I don't even get where you're going with this. Your argument is that bad and it being staged undermines it even more.

Atleast that is a slight modification of your earlier position - but before you insisted they had surrendered - trying to use the situation in greater Ghouta as if it also applied to Douma. The point is they hadn't surrendered in Douma, the fighting was getting costly for the government forces at a time when their armed forces were stretched thin and at an all time low despite being part of a string of victories that were turning the tide in favour of Assad, Douma was also of little strategic importance but a huge drain on their resources. Idlib was a mere spec on the horizon at that point - contrary to the views of others that Assad had "won" or it was just a mopping up operation at that point, etc. A final victory at that point was far from assured for Assad and anyone claiming so is an idiot - Iranian assets were (and still are) under severe pressure from Israel and the US has been trying to use sanctions, etc. to pressure Russia into pulling out - the loss of one or both at that point would have been as severe for Assad as a fullscale intervention from the West.

Where I'm going with that is that the image some have of Assad being in such a position that it is unthinkable he would have used chemical weapons is not true - none the less it assumes Assad was in any way intimidated by the West not just the logical argument which has many times been shown not to be the case. In no way does that mean he did it or that conclusive proof that he didn't changes the argument that uses the basis that he didn't have a reason to do it as evidence he didn't do it.

How about, you know, when they launched cruise missiles at Syria on the basis of lies by the Army of Islam and the White Helmets? That didn't happen? Such an insane action gives plausbility to the fact they will do it again or worse in Idlib hence why they backed down in their August offensive. The same trick is happening again now.

Idlib would have been retaken now, but for US, UK, French action. Are you arguing otherwise? So it clearly benefits jihadis. This is plain as day, but not for you apparently.

How does the airstrikes against chemical weapon facilities help the jihadis or act like an airforce for them? unless they were actually under threat from government gas attacks? acting as an airforce for the jihadis would necessitate removing the threats against them such as ground forces or denying the use of the sky above the rebel positions using aircraft.

Where do you get the idea from that Idlib would have been retaken by now if it wasn't for the US, UK, etc.? for most of the war Idlib has been in the hands of HTS/AQ (or what is now those) and Turkish backed militias and more recently somewhat protected by Turkish incursions into Syria. A few orchestrated false flag events have had little to no impact on Idlib or the road to Idlib to this point.

Given its post count and history, I suspect it's either an old member who was permabanned and reregistered or a spam bot

<200 posts, on a computer forum, and all so very passionately presented. Suspect.

Certainly not arguing from a position of sincerity anyhow - few nights back he hastily removed bits from his posts, though I managed to quote some, where he overplayed his hand such as some claims over Aleppo.

 

[EvilSooty]

Atleast that is a slight modification of your earlier position - but before you insisted they had surrendered - trying to use the situation in greater Ghouta as if it also applied to Douma. The point is they hadn't surrendered in Douma, the fighting was getting costly for the government forces at a time when their armed forces were stretched thin and at an all time low despite being part of a string of victories that were turning the tide in favour of Assad, Douma was also of little strategic importance but a huge drain on their resources. Idlib was a mere spec on the horizon at that point - contrary to the views of others that Assad had "won" or it was just a mopping up operation at that point, etc.

Where I'm going with that is that the image some have of Assad being in such a position that it is unthinkable he would have used chemical weapons is not true - none the less it assumes Assad was in any way intimidated by the West not just the logical argument which has many times been shown not to be the case. In no way does that mean he did it or that conclusive proof that he didn't changes the argument that uses the basis that he didn't have a reason to do it as evidence he didn't do it

"Assad had every reason to use chemical weapons in the attack I agree was staged"

That makes sense to you?

How does the airstrikes against chemical weapon facilities help the jihadis or act like an airforce for them? unless they were actually under threat from government gas attacks? acting as an airforce for the jihadis would necessitate removing the threats against them such as ground forces or denying the use of the sky above the rebel positions using aircraft.

Where do you get the idea from that Idlib would have been retaken by now if it wasn't for the US, UK, etc.? for most of the war Idlib has been in the hands of HTS/AQ and Turkish backed militias and more recently somewhat protected by Turkish incursions into Syria. A few orchestrated false flag events have had little to no impact on Idlib or the road to Idlib to this point.

As I said the bombings after Douma even though on insignificant targets (as they had to back down as otherwise it was war with Russia) gave a greenlight to the jihadis in Idlib where the White Helmets are also present to stage their own attacks.

They are doing that now. How does that not benefit the jihadis? Who's to say the attacks won't escalate? The lunatic Trump is in charge.

The only thing holding them back from a full on regime change war doing what you say as they did in Libya has been Russia. It certainly hasn't been for a want of trying looking for opportunities as otherwise why are they doing false flags to justify bombings? This is why I think this is very dangerous: even though Russia has drawn a red line they are still stirring up crap intervening and bombing/threatening to bomb.

'Idlib being retaken' - I get that idea from the fact the offensive was ready to go in August and at that time the US, UK & France openly said numerous times they would strike if there was a false flag and, hey presto, they backed down. I can't see Turkey alone going up against Russia and Syria combined without US-backing, but I'll take your point on this given the complications of a not insignificant country throwing a spanner in the works to their offensive.

OK, let's modify this slightly:

Idlib is full of thousands of Al Qaeda, correct?
Idlib is Syrian territory, correct?
The US, UK & France have no legal basis to act in Syria, correct?
In August 2018 Syria & Russia backed down under pressure from those countries over their Idlib offensive, correct?
Because of this Al Qaeda remained in control when otherwise there was a chance they could have been defeated, correct?
A new offensive is in the early stages now and the same threats are being made by the same countries, correct?

Who benefits from all this then? Any criticism of our government for intervening on behalf of Al Qaeda yet again today?

"Certainly not arguing from a position of sincerity anyhow - few nights back he hastily removed bits from his posts, though I managed to quote some, where he overplayed his hand such as some claims over Aleppo."

Don't make me laugh. Your arguments have been uniformly awful. There's only so much nonsense I can argue against in one post.

 

[Rroff]

"Assad had every reason to use chemical weapons in the attack I agree was staged"

That makes sense to you?

How does that make the remotest bit of sense to you? not having done something doesn't in any way change the nature of circumstantial evidence.

Someone can be found at the scene of a murder with every reason to have carried out the murder (for instance had previously been in prison for murder, was known to have threatened the person found dead, etc.) - but not the person who carried out the murder.

Same with the completely twisted logic you are trying to apply to the rest of the post.

Idlib being retaken' - I get that idea from the fact the offensive was ready to go in August and at that time the US, UK & France openly said numerous times they would strike if there was a false flag and, hey presto, they backed down. I can't see Turkey alone going up against Russia and Syria combined without US-backing, but I'll take your point on this given the complications of a not insignificant country throwing a spanner in the works to their offensive.

It was Turkey/Russia in negotiations that came to an agreement which stalled the earlier offensive against Idlib nothing to do with anyone else - Turkish/Russian relationships were just starting to improve after previous incidents like shooting down an aircraft so neither were in a hurry to do something that might upset things:

The meeting was held on 16 September, and it was announced that the two sides had reached an agreement. The deal included that a demilitarised buffer zone will created to separate the two sides, stretched from about 15 km to 25 km (9–15 miles) that will come into effect by 15 October. Troops from Russia and Turkey will patrol the zone, and Jihadist rebels have to abandon the areas, and retreat further in the Idlib province. The agreement also states “all tanks, MLRS [Multiple Rocket Launch Systems], artillery and mortars belonging to conflicting parties will be withdrawn from the demilitarized zone by October 10.”[41][42][43][44][45][46] In the deal, it was also included that the M4 and M5 highways, are to be open by end of the year, linking respectively Latakia and Damascus to Aleppo.[47]

The Turkistan Islamic Party, Guardians of Religion Organization, Ansar al-Tawhid, Ansar al-Din Front, and Ansar al-Islam rejected the deal, putting the agreement in jeopardy,[48][6] while Tahrir al-Sham issued an ambiguous statement on the deal.[8]

You are just posting any and everything that might sound likely to support your narrative with little regard for the truth.

 

[EvilSooty]

How does that make the remotest bit of sense to you? not having done something doesn't in any way change the nature of circumstantial evidence.

Someone can be found at the scene of a murder with every reason to have carried out the murder (for instance had previously been in prison for murder, was known to have threatened the person found dead, etc.) - but not the person who carried out the murder.

Same with the completely twisted logic you are trying to apply to the rest of the post.

Because if someone is in the habit of resorting to chemical warfare why resort to a slick propaganda outfit to stage them? Doesn't that suggest they aren't in the habit of doing such things and didn't see all these supposed benefits of using them that you claim? And just go back to the British general and admiral I quoted...makes zero sense. Cui bono? But we have been through this many times.

Twisted logic? I even modified it after you made a sensible point.

Idlib is full of thousands of Al Qaeda, correct?
Idlib is Syrian territory, correct?
The US, UK & France have no legal basis to act in Syria, correct?
In August 2018 Syria & Russia backed down under pressure from those countries over their Idlib offensive, correct?
Because of this Al Qaeda remained in control when otherwise there was a chance they could have been defeated, correct?
A new offensive is in the early stages now and the same threats are being made by the same countries, correct?

Who benefits from all this then? Any criticism of our government for intervening on behalf of Al Qaeda yet again today?

 

[Rroff]

Because if someone is in the habit of resorting to chemical warfare why resort to a slick propaganda outfit to stage them? Doesn't that suggest they aren't in the habit of doing such things? And just go back to the British general and admiral I quoted...makes zero sense. Cui bono? But we have been through this many times.

That isn't the argument I've been making - what I'm saying is a counter to people saying that Assad was winning means he couldn't possibly have a reason for carrying out an attack using chemical warfare which still isn't as strong an argument as people make it out to be even if it is proved by other means that he didn't carry out the attack. It only seems a strong reason if you are viewing events in Syria from a distance and imagining that by winning Assad was in a militarily close to undefeatable position when the reality is it was series of fragile victories, that were turning the tide his way but dependant on Russian airpower and Iranian manpower both of which he was under threat of losing and without which he couldn't spare a man or the consequences would be just as bad as a fullscale Western intervention - none the less back then there were protests across Iran demanding they pulled their troops out of Syria asking why so much money was being spent on it when people were struggling to afford to eat, etc. back home.

 

[EvilSooty]

It was Turkey/Russia in negotiations that came to an agreement which stalled the earlier offensive against Idlib nothing to do with anyone else - Turkish/Russian relationships were just starting to improve after previous incidents like shooting down an aircraft so neither were in a hurry to do something that might upset things:

Right, so nothing at all to do with those three countries which had attacked before last April threatening to do so again repeatedly? Gotcha. Prior to this agreement Russia and Syria were loudly proclaiming they were liberating the lot of it from Al Qaeda. Turkey, alone, got them to back down?

Turkey also backs the jihadis as you say and has been acting illegally so you know what, let's add them in to my question as it was a combination of pressure from all of them. It doesn't change what I am getting at here with the UK being complicit in protecting Al Qaeda. I'm British so am interested in my own government's actions principally.

Idlib is full of thousands of Al Qaeda, correct?
Idlib is Syrian territory, correct?
The US, UK, France & Turkey have no legal basis to act in Syria, correct?
In August 2018 Syria & Russia backed down under pressure from those countries over their Idlib offensive, correct?
Because of this Al Qaeda remained in control when otherwise there was a chance they could have been defeated, correct?
A new offensive is in the early stages now and the same threats are being made (not sure about Turkey so much now as they have moved closer to the Russians since Douma) by the same countries, correct?

Who benefits from all this then? Any criticism of our government, or the rest for that matter, for intervening on behalf of Al Qaeda yet again today?

 

[Rroff]

Idlib is full of thousands of Al Qaeda, correct?
Idlib is Syrian territory, correct?

Correct.

The US, UK, France & Turkey have no legal basis to act in Syria, correct?

AFAIK none have made an official declaration of war, there is however legal precedent for action against ISIS/ISIL.

In August 2018 Syria & Russia backed down under pressure from those countries over their Idlib offensive, correct?

I've seen nothing to establish that happened - both Turkey and Russia have strong reasons to do a deal over Idlib. If you have evidence otherwise by all means present it.

Because of this Al Qaeda remained in control when otherwise there was a chance they could have been defeated, correct?

There is a chance AQ in Idlib could have been defeated earlier but see my other point - Syrian government forces hadn't built back upto strength until late into 2018 ( https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...-need-of-reinforcements-as-idlib-battle-looms ) they'd have been in no hurry to launch a massive offensive before 2019 with or without anyone else meddling.

A new offensive is in the early stages now and the same threats are being made (not sure about Turkey so much now as they have moved closer to the Russians since Douma) by the same countries, correct?

Who benefits from all this then? Any criticism of our government for intervening on behalf of Al Qaeda yet again today?

It is obvious who benefits but just because AQ benefit doesn't mean they are the primary reason anyone is benefiting from the situation - even if used as a pretext certainly concerns for civilians in Idlib has been banded about by more than one side and certainly Turkey benefits with their current occupation of Northern Syria.

 

[EvilSooty]

AFAIK none have made an official declaration of war, there is however legal precedent for action against ISIS/ISIL.

Within Syria without the Syrian government's permission?

They have all attacked Syrian positions at one point or another (not sure about Turkey, but they certainly aren't fighting ISIS - they helped them) and are operating in the country without their permission. Act of war or not, completely illegal.

I've seen nothing to establish that happened - both Turkey and Russia have strong reasons to do a deal over Idlib. If you have evidence otherwise by all means present it.

We aren't mind readers, but it's also reasonable to assume that the threats of one superpower and two still major countries had a significant bearing. It's completely reasonable to view it as a combination of all fours' threats.

There is a chance AQ in Idlib could have been defeated earlier but see my other point - Syrian government forces hadn't built back upto strength until late into 2018 ( https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...-need-of-reinforcements-as-idlib-battle-looms ) they'd have been in no hurry to launch a massive offensive before 2019 with or without anyone else meddling.

They looked pretty ready in August 2018 hence the hysteria in Western countries and the threats.

It is obvious who benefits but just because AQ benefit doesn't mean they are the primary reason anyone is benefiting from the situation - even if used as a pretext certainly concerns for civilians in Idlib has been banded about by more than one side and certainly Turkey benefits with their current occupation of Northern Syria.

Finally, you admit that it benefits Al Qaeda for our government to intervene on their behalf. Why was that so hard? Why did we have to argue for pages to come to the same obvious conclusion?

Concern for citizens is plainly nonsense given the UK's track record and regime change plans for Syria. The staged Douma attack cements the fact the UK does not have good intentions here.

Any criticism at all? Do you think it's wrong for our government to intervene on behalf of Al Qaeda in Idlib? Especially as it looks like we are going down yet another false flag road here.

 

[Rroff]

Finally, you admit that it benefits Al Qaeda for our government to intervene on their behalf. Why was that so hard? Why did we have to argue for pages to come to the same obvious conclusion?

I didn't deny it originally - that is your reading of my intentions because I'm not nicely lining up behind your narrative - I've only stated that just because they benefit doesn't mean there aren't other motives or reasons involved - the problem is you are presenting things that you see as "reasonable to assume" as fact until someone questions them.

Quite frankly I feel more like an observer than someone involved in any of this - I don't support any side involved in what is going on neither does anything surprise me any more and though I think it wrong if the UK uses false flags as a justification to take action in Syria the only people I feel in any way supportive of are those poor innocent civilians caught in the crossfire.

They looked pretty ready in August 2018 hence the hysteria in Western countries and the threats.

By August 2018 the Syrian armed forces was starting to recover again but there was still a lot of training, etc. going on, they might have had the frontline forces in place but reserves and support was still a work in process and concerns over the involvement of Iran and Russia - they certainly wouldn't have been hurrying to go in.

 

[EvilSooty]

What other motives or reasons could there be? My 'narrative'? I've posted a link to our Prime Minister intervening today on behalf of Al Qaeda and the gov doing the same thing in August 2018 as they are who benefit, yet you can't criticise the UK gov's actions on this? Even after the false flag in Douma shows them to be completely dishonest and the jihadis are even using exactly the same trick?

How much more obvious does it have to be?

Same as the Douma false flag...pages of arguing about minor details and deflections before admitting the obvious, but zero criticism of the UK gov beyond token lukewarm disapproval.

You are in no way neutral on this for whatever bizarre reason.

 

[Rroff]

Same as the Douma false flag...pages of arguing about minor details and deflections before admitting the obvious, but zero criticism of the UK gov position.

None of my comments were or are a counter argument to Douma - it is you reading them as such because I'm not just accepting your narrative. I'm simply against the perpetuating of mistruths or one sided interpretation of events with multiple truths as if there can only be one true side to it, etc. on something I've been following in detail for many years. I wouldn't consider my position as intended to be neutral but neither am I particularly given for taking sides - especially in the Middle East where with more experience you will understand just how often the truth lies between any and all sides involved.

 

[B&W]

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.

You just don't get it do you, not everything is black and white. Because I support the annihilation of Assad does not mean I support all jihadi groups in syria.

Fact is he's killed thousands of innocent people and I don't care if it's jihadis or americans who take him down. He deserves every bomb that is thrown his way, and yes you are a muppet for having a heart attack when someone wants to overthrow this piece of ****.

Jeez, it's like his your idol.

 

[EvilSooty]

You just don't get it do you, not everything is black and white. Because I support the annihilation of Assad does not mean I support all jihadi groups in syria.

Fact is he's killed thousands of innocent people and I don't care if it's jihadis or americans who take him down. He deserves every bomb that is thrown his way, and yes you are a muppet for having a heart attack when someone wants to overthrow this piece of ****.

Jeez, it's like his your idol.

It's a fact Douma was a false flag to draw us into a war and a British-funded group was involved.

It's a fact our government is on the same side as Al Qaeda.

There is a risk of war with Russia over this.

You seem fine with that.

What has Syria to do with us? Do you feel the same way about Saudi? They have killed thousands in Yemen and the UN have said they are deliberately targetting civilian agricultural infrastructure in a country where people actually are starving.

How about war with Saudi then?

Who appointed us world police?

We along with the US et al caused the deaths of at a conservative minimum 600K people in Iraq in a war based on lies.

Can China invade and destroy us? Isn't that how it works?

 

[B&W]

None of your first two sentences are fact, it is conjecture based on a incomplete leaked report. You are happy to presume it is fact on what little you know, why you are so adamant when nothing is clear is surprising.

Never heard of the phrase "fog of war"?

There is a risk in many things in life, doesn't mean you are scared to things and in all seriousness russia will not risk a serious conflict with the western powers over Syria.

Human life has the same value whether it be in Syria or Ethiopia, yes I do feel the same regarding the Saudis I despise them they are worse than Iran.

Why not overthrow the Saudi regime?

Might is right (a ugly truth of the world), and tbh I don't see nothing wrong with deposing of mass murderers.

Yes, a war that shouldn't have happened.

Well when our leadership causes the death's of tens of thousands in our country and causes civil war then yeah I hope someone steps in but it won't happen will it we have the big nuclear stick.

You seem content to have whole populations held down in misery for the benefit of the few at the top who control along religious and ethnic lines.

 

[Johno please?]

Can China invade and destroy us? Isn't that how it works?

If Teresa may insisted on 100% turnout at the polls through fear of violence, invaded france and gassed scottish people, then yes I would welcome china in.

Hence why your analogy is crap.

 

[EvilSooty]

None of your first two sentences are fact, it is conjecture based on a incomplete leaked report. You are happy to presume it is fact on what little you know, why you are so adamant when nothing is clear is surprising.

Never heard of the phrase "fog of war"?

There is a risk in many things in life, doesn't mean you are scared to things and in all seriousness russia will not risk a serious conflict with the western powers over Syria.

Human life has the same value whether it be in Syria or Ethiopia, yes I do feel the same regarding the Saudis I despise them they are worse than Iran.

Why not overthrow the Saudi regime?

Might is right (a ugly truth of the world), and tbh I don't see nothing wrong with deposing of mass murderers.

Yes, a war that shouldn't have happened.

Well when our leadership causes the death's of tens of thousands in our country and causes civil war then yeah I hope someone steps in but it won't happen will it we have the big nuclear stick.

You seem content to have whole populations held down in misery for the benefit of the few at the top who control along religious and ethnic lines.

Oh, so it wasn't staged? People from the videos have turned up alive and called it a hoax. A suppressed leaked report says the cylinders were manually placed instead of dropped by air. It's a fairytale.

We are on the same side of Al Qaeda unless you want to ignore our Prime Minister today threatening consequences against the Syrians for attacking...an area full of Al Qaeda.

Alternative explanations are welcome? Give me a laugh.

Might is right? Fair enough, at least you are consistent in having no principles and refusing to acknowledge our own country is responsible for any crimes. It's refreshingly honest. Eternal war? Great. Grab your rifle and go for it.

Worked out wonderfully in Iraq and Libya enjoying their 'freedom' admist the rubble. Everywhere these moral crusades to free the people have gone have left a wake of destruction, but it'll work next time right? They aren't at all based on lies, resources and geopolitical considerations? Nah, human rights.

My position is it has nothing at all to do with us what goes on in other countries.

As for Russia not risking a war that's a risk I would rather not take. Last April they threatened to shoot back at wherever any of our missiles came from if their troops were in danger and put their Med navy into battle positions.

But I suppose protecting Al Qaeda is a risk you have to take for freedom...

 

[EvilSooty]

If Teresa may insisted on 100% turnout at the polls through fear of violence, invaded france and gassed scottish people, then yes I would welcome china in.

Hence why your analogy is crap.

Their internal political system was nothing to do with us. They invaded Kuwait after being given a green light by the US Ambassador at the time when they were still an ally and gassing the Kurds? We had zero problem when they gassed Iranians during the war we put them up to.

Where did the chemicals for his CW program come from again?

The Iraq war was based on lies leading to well over 600K being killed. There was no legal justification for it.

500K kids died during the sanctions in the 90s due to lack of medical supplies which UN officials resigned over calling it a 'genocide'.

After that we ****** over Libya based on lies too.

So when can China invade us? Be consistent like B & W. Might is right, eh?

 

[Rroff]

People from the videos have turned up alive and called it a hoax

Have a link for that? I've only seen one instance myself which was impossible to verify as it was a young child who seemed confused. Two of the doctors who were on Syrian TV claiming it was a hoax have subsequently turned up in France and the UK one claiming they had no idea whether it was a hoax or not and that they were dragged out of their place of work and told to say it was at gunpoint and the other I've only seen statements through a Welsh MP and not verified accounts of the person themselves.