ISIL, ISIS, Daesh discussion thread.

[EvilSooty]

It's important to know who is disseminating this alleged report and what their backgrounds are. Then we can come to some conclusions as to the credibility of the views that they are then forming from said "report". You're just sucked into the whirlwind of misinformation. You yearn to have found something others haven't. I'm afraid to tell you that you simply lack critical thought and you've been caught up in a propaganda machine that started once Russian military intervention began in Syria. (I can't assume you're part of that machine, that would be too generous of me).

You clearly haven't read the report. Do tell me the alternative interpretation of this...

As I said it's a primary source that anyone can read. It speaks for itself.

"Assessment

32. At this stage the FFM engineering sub-team cannot be certain that the cylinders at either location arrived there as a result of being dropped from an aircraft. The dimensions, characteristics and appearance of the cylinders and the surrounding scene of the incidents, were inconsistent with what would have been expected in the case of either cylinder having been delivered from an aircraft. In each case the alternative hypothesis produced the only plausible explanation for observations at the scene.

33. In summary, observations at the scene of the two locations, together with subsequent analysis, suggest that there is a higher probability that both cylinders were manually placed at those two locations rather than being delivered from aircraft."

But keep going on about a group of British people, not Russians, who have been subjected to a smear campaign for going against the grain if you want.

That you think the 'whirlwind of misinformation' is coming from the anti-war side shows you are deluded. We are on the side of Al Qaeda in Syria yet people pointing out what our gov is doing is wrong are peddling 'misinformation'. Sure.

P.S. Just noticed your 'alleged report' comment. It's genuine, the OPCW have confirmed it.

https://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2019/05/strange-news-from-the-opcw-in-the-hague-.html

But the Mail on Sunday is a hotbed of pro-Russian propaganda I'm sure so you better not read it in case it contaminates your precious bodily fluids.

 

[EvilSooty]

Hands up if you believed the white helmets were staging a crisis when they did the mannequin challenge. Particularly after RT told you that they were. EvilSooty, come on, own up.

You are using an example of where the WHs staged a video, for whatever reason, including adding sound effects and someone acting as a victim being pulled from rubble to prove what exactly? How does that help your argument?

 

[Rroff]

Are these the same White Helmets you agree by implication staged Douma to trigger Western military action? Who were clearly acting for the benefit of Western audiences? Those White Helmets? Turns out the Russians were right then, no?

Here's their Twitter account by the way featuring videos of their 'rescuers' with 'White Helmets' in English far more prominent than any other language.

https://twitter.com/SyriaCivilDef

Not that this matters. They have been discredited so I don't get why you keep going on about this.

Any other examples of this 'pro-Russian propaganda'? That one isn't a great example.

Who is behind the White Helmets is irrelevant to the point I'm making - which further proves the point I made above about the lack of discernment when it comes to all the angles (was going to say the other side of the coin but it isn't as simple as two sides to it).

 

[h4rm0ny]

One criticism I would have is that you, Amnesia and EvilSooty (who both seem to post oddly close information in a very similar manner weirdly and employ a similar style of sniping) is that you don't apply the same level of discernment to what is clearly propaganda from other non pro-west sources, a major one being pro-Russian, when they say what you want to see. It is often an affliction of "woke" individuals.

I'm not either of the other two if that's what you're suggesting.

As regards information sources, I am critical and I think the evidence does support my conclusion that a false flag is the likely result. The Russian government didn't create the leaked OPCW report nor were they the ones that have previous history in threatening the then head of the OPCW if they didn't comply with US narrative for example. I draw from multiple sources because nearly all sources are biased. When I want to know what things Russia is doing wrong, I will read our press. When I want to know what we are doing wrong, I will read someone else's. The only press that typically approaches non-partisanship is that marketed towards financial markets and investors. For example, I subscribe to Stratfor. Customers of such services don't care about who is good. Or more specifically what someone's narrative is that justifies their actions. They care about real things that might affect their investment decisions and if a company doesn't deliver clear information they take their money to someone that will.

The popular press provides a product - that product is a narrative about why you are good and why the people you don't like are bad. If you can afford the sources that peddle actual information, great. But you can also make sure you read a selection of narratives because whilst lies against your enemy will do in a pinch, a unwelcome truth about them is preferred. You just have to mine such pieces from the general flow. It's why I get very, very unhappy with things like the EU setting up a body to discredit foreign news sources and selective highlighting of sources as untrustworthy by YouTube et al. with the same aim in mind.

Not that I object to you making the point you make. It's good to test my objectivity and be needled to do so. But rather than "one criticism I have of you", it would be more effective to give an example of where I have uncritically accepted something. That will do more to convince me I've gone astray than just telling me I lack discernment. If it's positive for you to hear it, I have become more open-minded to the possibility Assad did use chlorine gas from your posts. But a false flag still seems more likely to me and the distinction between chlorine gas and sarin as originally alleged is a big one. The latter is effective and requires a state-level actor or close to to produce, afaik. Whilst chlorine can be made by a random person in their garage with fairly easily available materials. It also has a very reduced military value, again, afaik. And that weighs into the probability of false flag again.

 

[h4rm0ny]

The issue I have is that the likes of yourselves, you are detracting from the fact that assad has caused many atrocities, but you choose to dilute that fact with misinformation and a pro assad push

I don't believe I've made any pro-Assad remarks in this thread. What I don't believe is that the USA are a trustworthy source or that military actions are justifiable based on very dubious claims. It's why with Rroff I've not challenged them at all on whether military action is right, I've very explicitly challenged them on whether these allegations justify military action. Unfortunately Rroff regards that as a gotcha question because if you don't, then obviously the US responses are not supportable. You'd have to go back to other reasons to support them such as "we need to depose Assad because he's harming people" or "the existence of a strong Syria is a negative for Israel's geographical dominance" or whatever. Which one could argue, but I don't think as a legal basis for regime change which seems to be the USA's aim. Something they also tried for with tragic results in Libya and Iraq.

The woke remarks refer to the fact that the likes of EvilSooty are reposting this like they've had a sudden revelation. Like this is sudden, compelling news and that because they've decided that the BBC hasn't reported on it, there must be foul play and a cover-up on the cards. The lack of critical thinking is apparent. The monotonous roundabout of tripe is tedious. Like I said, I've been engaging in this monotony for years now, so forgive me that I choose to rather just point, laugh, and generally refuse to waste my time entertaining anything more with the propaganda sheep.

That's not really what "woke" means, though. "Woke" is like "I'm aware of my inherent racial privilege because I'm White" or "My pronouns are xe/xim/xer" sort of stuff. If it used to mean you've had some powerful sudden enlightenment, these days it's just a partisan term against the hyper-Progressive "woke" brigade. Hence my puzzlement that this is what you thought of your critics.

 

[Rroff]

If it's positive for you to hear it, I have become more open-minded to the possibility Assad did use chlorine gas from your posts.

I'll address the rest later - but my posts weren't so much to open the possibility that Assad was involved in the use of any kind of gas or nerve agent but that people were passing off what is actually circumstantial evidence (for or against) as if or in the form of fact.

 

[EvilSooty]

That's not really what "woke" means, though. "Woke" is like "I'm aware of my inherent racial privilege because I'm White" or "My pronouns are xe/xim/xer" sort of stuff. If it used to mean you've had some powerful sudden enlightenment, these days it's just a partisan term against the hyper-Progressive "woke" brigade. Hence my puzzlement that this is what you thought of your critics.

Yes, I'm baffled by this constant use of 'woke' too especially as I have little in common with the identity politics brigade and the only thing you can tell from my comments here is that I am strongly anti-war. Ironically the wishy washy fake liberal Guardian-reader types this more accurately describes have no problem with war. In fact, they are all for it. The comments section at the time of Libya was interesting to say the least.

John Pilger (who described the White Helmets as a propaganda construct ) sums it up nicely:

 

[RoboCod]

Yes, I'm baffled

Easily done it seems.

 

[EvilSooty]

Easily done it seems.

Yeah, best stick to inane comments. Argument isn't for you.

 

[EvilSooty]

Who is behind the White Helmets is irrelevant to the point I'm making - which further proves the point I made above about the lack of discernment when it comes to all the angles (was going to say the other side of the coin but it isn't as simple as two sides to it).

You have no point. Just more arguments for the sake of argument.

This defence of the White Helmets is a perfect example. You are defending a group that is discredited by your own admission that Douma was likely staged given they provided the evidence for the staged attack.

You can't see the wood for the trees. You love to focus on tiny pieces of criticism in isolation ignoring everything else.

"Well, the fact they have English writing on their clothing is purely circumstantial. What? What was that? They are founded and funded by the British government and have been implicated in a staged chemical weapons attack? Well, I'm not interested. Let's ignore all of that and focus on the weakest argument against them possible ignoring everything else".

It's the same as how you can't even state the blindingly obvious that the US, UK et al bombing Syria on the basis of the lies that were Douma was wrong.

Waste of time discussing anything with you. You are RoboCod with brains (that's not a compliment).

 

[EvilSooty]

"h4rm0ny said: ↑If it's positive for you to hear it, I have become more open-minded to the possibility Assad did use chlorine gas from your posts."

You have been a voice of reason here, h4rm0ny, and I have enjoyed reading your posts. But, I'm really struggling here to think of a single argument from Rroff that would make me think that the Syrian government ordered a chemical attack.

If you agree, as I do, that Douma was staged then doubt is thrown upon all other allegations against them made by the OPCW. If you venture outside of any findings of the politically compromised OPCW (as you agree) then it comes down to the word of jihadis. I don't like criticising people that I pretty much agree with 99%, but I don't want to be a hypocrite either and ignore it

P.S. Rroff's affected neutrality is quite grating. I can criticise people who are otherwise coming from the same position as me, but he cannot. Why not? Every single criticism he has made has been directed towards those who are anti-war. Stop prentending to be neutral - it's laughably transparent.

 

[Rroff]

You have no point. Just more arguments for the sake of argument.

This defence of the White Helmets is a perfect example. You are defending a group that is discredited by your own admission that Douma was likely staged given they provided the evidence for the staged attack.

You can't see the wood for the trees. You love to focus on tiny pieces of criticism in isolation ignoring everything else.

"Well, the fact they have English writing on their clothing is purely circumstantial. What? What was that? They are founded and funded by the British government and have been implicated in a staged chemical weapons attack? Well, I'm not interested. Let's ignore all of that and focus on the weakest argument against them possible ignoring everything else".

It's the same as how you can't even state the blindingly obvious that the US, UK et al bombing Syria on the basis of the lies that were Douma was wrong.

Waste of time discussing anything with you. You are RoboCod with brains (that's not a compliment).

I am not defending the White Helmets at all - just because I disagree over a point about them doesn't mean I support them or disagree as to the origins of their existence and funding.

Regardless of who is behind the White Helmets and what their agenda may be that they have English language on their uniforms is entirely meaningless as an identifying feature as to who is behind them but it suits pro-Russian propaganda to push it as having meaning and reinforce is as having meaning by taking extra steps to push that such as altering the context of photos, etc. for their own ends not in pursuit of the truth and if you let that kind of propaganda influence you on this you will also allow it to influence your thinking on other matters. That they have exposed or told some truth doesn't mean they are interested in the truth - devil and quoting scripture and all that.

EDIT: Or Maybe FlyDamas, etc. is actually MI6? https://www.facebook.com/flydamas/photos/d41d8cd9/1930050270572954/ hmmmm

That doesn't in any way imply that the British government isn't behind them - that is entirely immaterial to the point I'm making.

You seem quite vulnerable to anything that plays on [Western] anti-establishment values I'm not sure if you are just swallowing it hook, line and sinker or complicit while on the other hand being critical of people just accepting what they are told to believe from Western sources.

P.S. Rroff's affected neutrality is quite grating. I can criticise people who are otherwise coming from the same position as me, but he cannot. Why not? Every single criticism he has made has been directed towards those who are anti-war. Stop prentending to be neutral - it's laughably transparent.

Now you are just trying to play some kind of moral highground/emotional argument using a lot assumptions that only exist in your mind - I've responded to certain arguments and it doesn't matter who they are coming from or what their position is on anything else.

That you constantly try to deflect from the points I'm making and try anything rather than examine them closely is quite telling.

 

[h4rm0ny]

Waste of time discussing anything with you. You are RoboCod with brains (that's not a compliment).

That made me laugh. Also, very efficient way of catching two people with one jibe!

You have been a voice of reason here, h4rm0ny, and I have enjoyed reading your posts. But, I'm really struggling here to think of a single argument from Rroff that would make me think that the Syrian government ordered a chemical attack.

My knowledge of the military details on the ground is not as detailed as Rroff's. They made arguments about why Assad might have more reason to resort to such tactics than I believe and I don't know enough about who advanced on what town when or how much resistance they faced to dispute. So I accepted a greater possibility that I'm wrong about the possible gains. I'm still of the opinion that balance of probabilities is heavily on the side of false flags, though and clear in saying that military action in response to a few very dubious allegations is wrong. Rroff will not concede that last but it remains nonetheless.[/QUOTE]

Regardless of who is behind the White Helmets and what their agenda may be that they have English language on their uniforms is entirely meaningless as an identifying feature as to who is behind them but it suits pro-Russian propaganda to push it as having meaning and reinforce is as having meaning by taking extra steps to push that such as altering the context of photos, etc. for their own ends not in pursuit of the truth and if you let that kind of propaganda influence you on this you will also allow it to influence your thinking on other matters. That they have exposed or told some truth doesn't mean they are interested in the truth - devil and quoting scripture and all that.

Most of your argument, Rroff, seems to focus on contesting the importance of English language on White Helmet uniforms. My recollection of how this got started was that Sooty presented a series of arguments for White Helmet's lack of neutrality and with each one in turn being rejected added this on the end as a final "-- but, look!". You then turned round and picked this as your proverbial battleground and it became about challenging what is effectively the least of Sooty's arguments. For one, the point Sooty seems to be making is that the English language on a non-English (supposedly) organization working in a non-English speaking part of the world indicates that they're playing to an English speaking audience. I think given the amount of information the WH's direct at Western audiences (just check their Twitter feed!) indicates they certainly are playing to a Western audience. You make great meal out of calling things circumstantial but this isn't a scenario where anyone in power is going to announce "By the way, this is propaganda". Short of leaks (and the leaks we've had support our case, fwiw), we're talking about balances of probabilities by the very nature of this discussion. If you reject that and insist that the only discussion that can be had is one of absolutes then I don't see that discussion can take place.

In summary the discussion that is taking place:
Sooty: "All of this shows false flag and WH as Western agents" (paraphrase).
You: "Where is the letter from John Bolton saying 'do another gas attack on Tuesday'" (paraphrase).
Me: "Seems by far the most likely that Sooty is right"
You: "That doesn't matter, it's not a certainty."

It's the "that doesn't matter" which gets us. You are either arguing honestly, in which case your focus on this as a purely logical game of Russell's Teapot invoking seems, well, callous at least. Or you have a partisan position and are using inflated standards to dismiss reasonable conclusions. Or third possibility is you know more than us and your greater expertise leads you to a different weighting of the possibilities. But as you actually agree there's a very high probability of it being false flag that last doesn't seem to be in the running. And your refusal to accept that military action based on very shaky allegations is wrong remains something that also leads me to conclude its partisanship and distrust any other arguments about military realities on the ground.

 

[RoboCod]

I am not defending the White Helmets at all - just because I disagree over a point about them doesn't mean I support them or disagree as to the origins of their existence and funding.

You're arguing with a guy/girl who puts two and two together and gets two. She thinks because we bomb targets that some Islamic terrorists are fighting we must be those terrorist allies. How black and white the world must seem to her!

Alas, I just think they're using this thread as a tool to spread more misinformation, just like their heroes like Vanessa Beeley. It's a sorry state of affairs. This thread used to be good for discussion about the topic of ISIS. Not for spamming of propaganda and conspiracy theory.

 

[Rroff]

For one, the point Sooty seems to be making is that the English language on a non-English (supposedly) organization working in a non-English speaking part of the world indicates that they're playing to an English speaking audience.

This is what I am taking exception to - the whole notion - as I've shown with evidence there is nothing unusual about that. Many many organizations in that part of the world make use of English (or sometimes French) as much as they do Arabic or other native languages without it having any significance as to who or what part of the world they originate from. A good number of higher educated Syrians are fluent in English and some parts of the Middle East it is common as a second language especially when it comes to business.

Or third possibility is you know more than us and your greater expertise leads you to a different weighting of the possibilities.

I'm certainly not going to present myself as an expert on the region but I have some experience (my brother in law for instance is Egyptian) some of what people are talking about shows lack of actual experience with the Middle East and it is skewing their perception.

You're arguing with a guy/girl who puts two and two together and gets two. She thinks because we bomb targets that some Islamic terrorists are fighting we must be those terrorist allies. How black and white the world must seem to her!

It is kind of like these conspiracy theorists who having found 1-2 theories that turn out to be true believe it validates all the other conspiracies they believe in. Also the same one sided application of critical thinking where anything that supports their perspective they just straight pass off as fact and try to deflect anyone from looking too closely even as far as attacking the people who don't just accept their narrative - usually a sign of someone unwilling or unable to debate the facts.

 

[Rroff]

Not Syria but sobering:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world...-the-battle-scarred-philippine-city-of-marawi

Looks like the government resorted to going house by house with heavy ordinance - not new information itself but a glimpse of the long term picture of this kind of stuff even after the war is won.

 

[EvilSooty]

I am not defending the White Helmets at all - just because I disagree over a point about them doesn't mean I support them or disagree as to the origins of their existence and funding.

Regardless of who is behind the White Helmets and what their agenda may be that they have English language on their uniforms is entirely meaningless as an identifying feature as to who is behind them but it suits pro-Russian propaganda to push it as having meaning and reinforce is as having meaning by taking extra steps to push that such as altering the context of photos, etc. for their own ends not in pursuit of the truth and if you let that kind of propaganda influence you on this you will also allow it to influence your thinking on other matters. That they have exposed or told some truth doesn't mean they are interested in the truth - devil and quoting scripture and all that.

What on earth are you talking about? You agree Douma was staged, correct? Where did the evidence for it come from again? The White Helmets, yes? So it turns out the Russian 'propaganda' about them was correct, no?

They staged Douma, yes? They were founded by the British, yes? They are funded by the British, yes? Yet you still quibble trying to defend them? It's propaganda to attack an organisation that was invovled in the staging of a chemical weapons attack that left 40 or so dead? Where did those bodies come from? If the Syrian army didn't kill them, who did?

I have asked these questions a few times now and you completely ignore them as they are inconvenient to the ******** you are pushing.

If you want to die on this hill by all means go ahead. Dig this hole of yours even further. You talk to the imbecile Robocod about 'conspiracy theories'. What conspiracy theory exactly? You implicitly agree the WHs are discredited by agreeing that Douma was staged.

Now you are just trying to play some kind of moral highground/emotional argument using a lot assumptions that only exist in your mind - I've responded to certain arguments and it doesn't matter who they are coming from or what their position is on anything else.

That you constantly try to deflect from the points I'm making and try anything rather than examine them closely is quite telling.

Give me a single example in this thread where you criticised people who were pro-war and Western 'intervention' in countries that have nothing at all to do with us. I mean, I've argued with people here justifying the Iraq war, a genocidal bloodbath war of aggression based on lies, and you haven't said a word against them.

Yet how many times have you argued against me on mentioning in passing once that the White Helmets, who you yourself implicitly agree are discredited, have English writing on their jackets for propaganda purposes?

You paint yourself as impartial yet defend the clear propaganda outfit that is the White Helmets and have **** all to say to defenders of the Iraq War? Oh go away, charlatan.

 

[EvilSooty]

[QUOTE="h4rm0ny, post: 32759748, member: 116805"My knowledge of the military details on the ground is not as detailed as Rroff's. They made arguments about why Assad might have more reason to resort to such tactics than I believe and I don't know enough about who advanced on what town when or how much resistance they faced to dispute. So I accepted a greater possibility that I'm wrong about the possible gains. I'm still of the opinion that balance of probabilities is heavily on the side of false flags, though and clear in saying that military action in response to a few very dubious allegations is wrong. Rroff will not concede that last but it remains nonetheless.[/QUOTE]

What Rroff has argued is laughable. Here's a British admiral summing up how ridiculous it would have been for Assad to have ordered the attack.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ygdfiL61WU

You are right to be sceptical. Rroff is a contrarian for the sake of it.

This is a person that can't even say that bombing Syria based on a false flag was wrong and instead resorts to all sorts of mental gymnastics. Nuts.

Anyway, apologies for having a pop at you. I was drunk when I wrote the previous post.

 

[EvilSooty]

You're arguing with a guy/girl who puts two and two together and gets two. She thinks because we bomb targets that some Islamic terrorists are fighting we must be those terrorist allies. How black and white the world must seem to her!

Alas, I just think they're using this thread as a tool to spread more misinformation, just like their heroes like Vanessa Beeley. It's a sorry state of affairs. This thread used to be good for discussion about the topic of ISIS. Not for spamming of propaganda and conspiracy theory.

What 'misinformation' am I spreading exactly? Be specific (I know that will be a struggle for you).

I note that you haven't replied to my previous post where I quote directly from the leaked OPCW engineering report (that you haven't read) that Douma was likely staged. As you have read the engineers' view was unambigious. You had previously said that it was being misrepresented even though it is very clear. Your comments?

If we 'bomb targets' of the Syrian military and the only opposition in Syria is jihadi then how does it do anything other than beneift jihadis, Einstein?

The official position of the British Government is that it is opposed to the Syrians retaking Idlib even though it is controlled by Al Qaeda and that it's ready to intervene militarily in their favour. Your thoughts?

Why are you on the side of Al Qaeda in Syria? Really interested in this to be honest. The people in control of Idlib are indistinguishable from those who went on a stabbing spree in London yet you are fine with being on the same side as them. What the **** is wrong with you?

 

[Rroff]

I can only assume you are still drunk.

Take one of your points:

They staged Douma, yes? They were founded by the British, yes? They are funded by the British, yes? Yet you still quibble trying to defend them? It's propaganda to attack an organisation that was invovled in the staging of a chemical weapons attack that left 40 or so dead? Where did those bodies come from? If the Syrian army didn't kill them, who did?

Suggesting here that as the chemical attack was staged those civilians weren't killed by the Syrian army and implying as you've suggested several times before that the WHs must have killed some civilians to stage the attack because that plays to your agenda... (EDIT: Which by the way I'm not saying didn't happen, though I know you will carry from this post that I'm saying that, but looking at the information we have leaves the potential source of those bodies very open with more likely possibilities).

You seem to be conveniently skipping around the fact that the Syrian army had been bombarding the area numerous times in the days before the supposed gas attack and before that in early attacks with conventional artillery, etc. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBQm0LEu3Ak

The very videos you used as evidence before the doctors, etc. say they were dealing with numerous civilians suffering from severe hypoxia and that the bodies they'd seen appeared to have died from hypoxia rather than some chemical agent - hypoxia caused by the dust from the government shelling being blown into the basements people were taking shelter in.

There is also going to be a lot of people dying in sieges like that from malnutrition, contaminated or lack of food, contaminated or lack of water - especially polluted drinking water and from illnesses they simply don't have the medication for, etc.

Then there is the use of civilians as human shields which has been a common tactic with rebels and caused numerous civilian deaths in the crossfire, etc.

Or they might have been killed by Jihadists or the WHs especially to stage a chemical attack.

My point being there are numerous possible explanations and the most likely one and most substantiated with actual evidence isn't the one you want it to be - you've already decided it is the explanation that most plays to the narrative you want to push.

You seem to be incredibly narrow minded and unwilling or unable to critically examine your own thinking and completely off base in interpretation of mine.