War with Russia

Author
Discussion

frankenstein12

1,915 posts

95 months

Tuesday 11th April 2017
quotequote all
ATG said:
frankenstein12 said:
Russia have invested a huge amount of time and money into trying to assist Assad in getting rid of Isis with the US doing everything they could to undermine Assad and Russias efforts.
The US has been bombing Isis in Syria in cooperation with the Russians. That is hardly "undermining" Assad and Russia's efforts with regards to Isis.

Russia has also spent a great deal of time attacking Assad's domestic opponents who also oppose Isis . Indeed initially these were the only people Russia attacked, because their intent was to remove the moderate opposition so that the conflict would become reduced to Isis versus Assad.

But don't let this get in the way of your ramblings.
Wrong and even the US have admitted to this yet again. They have been supplying weapons to so called moderate rebels as well as training and intel and those same so called rebels have been passing the weapons, intel and training on to Isis and Al q. The US has admitted to this and has in fact reduced the amount of support it was giving because of this.

Likewise the US did not put any real effort into taking on Isis until Russia got involved. The US knew just like Russia and everyone else about the Oil wells being mined and the illegal oil being sold through Turkey and Iraq. They knew which oil fields and knew the convoy routes.

It took Russia bombing the oil routes and refineries to get the US involved and start doing the same as funny enough it does not look good if the nasty old Russians are actively targeting Isis biggest revenue stream when the US could have but wasnt.

The US have stated their intent was to use Isis and the rebels to overthrow Assad and then put in place a transitional government. This is not a secret. Unfortunately they did not anticipate how big isis would get or how uncontrollable they would be.

frankenstein12

1,915 posts

95 months

Tuesday 11th April 2017
quotequote all
Hayek said:
Mr Tracy said:
frankenstein12 said:
Nobody truly knows what happened.
Dr. Frankenstein .... 'I wonder if I will regret giving him the village idiots brain' scratchchin
Provide better evidence/sources if you have them...
Oh please dont ask those who believe everything they have been told about the situation in Syria to provide evidence we will be inundated with guardian articles and statements from the governments and terrorist sorry rebels and white helmets.

Cobnapint

8,597 posts

150 months

Tuesday 11th April 2017
quotequote all
frankenstein12 said:
There is no actual evidence of any of the crimes Assad is accused of other than from dubious sources (Turkey) . Assad has denied his involvement. The Russians have denied his involvement.

Nobody truly knows what happened.
So, in your head - because Assad and Russia have denied Syria did it, and Turkey said it did - it is Turkey that is the 'dubious source here.

I know Turkey is a bit effd up at the minute, but as far as dubious sources of information go, Russia is on pole.

barryrs

4,376 posts

222 months

Tuesday 11th April 2017
quotequote all
I'm not convinced this will explode into wider conflict, the situation seems to suit Trump & Putin.

They both get to sabre rattle to a home audience and unfortunately the Syrians pay the price.

frankenstein12

1,915 posts

95 months

Tuesday 11th April 2017
quotequote all
Cobnapint said:
frankenstein12 said:
There is no actual evidence of any of the crimes Assad is accused of other than from dubious sources (Turkey) . Assad has denied his involvement. The Russians have denied his involvement.

Nobody truly knows what happened.
So, in your head - because Assad and Russia have denied Syria did it, and Turkey said it did - it is Turkey that is the 'dubious source here.

I know Turkey is a bit effd up at the minute, but as far as dubious sources of information go, Russia is on pole.
Not that simplistic. Balance of probability.

The questions to ask is.
Who stands to gain?
Who stands to lose?
What do they stand to gain?
What do they stand to lose?

So what does Assad gain from launching a chemical attack? Nothing.
What does he stand to lose? Everything. He loses support of western governments and risks alienating his ally Russia by potentially asking them to choose between protecting him or dealing with the fallout from global government.

What does Turkey stand to gain? Get rid of Assad who they have wanted to get rid of for many many years.
What does Turkey stand to lose? If its not a saran attack they stand to lose the opportunity to get rid of Assad

What do the rebels stand to gain? Toppling of the Assad regime by angry western governments.
What do the rebels stand to lose? Nothing.

While it's no certainty that Assad did not launch the attack out of all parties involved he directly by far stands to lose the most.

Ergo while he may have done as claimed balance of probability says he is innocent of the allegation and other parties are involved in some way.


frankenstein12

1,915 posts

95 months

Tuesday 11th April 2017
quotequote all
barryrs said:
I'm not convinced this will explode into wider conflict, the situation seems to suit Trump & Putin.

They both get to sabre rattle to a home audience and unfortunately the Syrians pay the price.
This is also entirely possible.

loafer123

15,406 posts

214 months

Tuesday 11th April 2017
quotequote all
frankenstein12 said:
Not that simplistic. Balance of probability.

The questions to ask is.
Who stands to gain?
Who stands to lose?
What do they stand to gain?
What do they stand to lose?

So what does Assad gain from launching a chemical attack? Nothing.
What does he stand to lose? Everything. He loses support of western governments and risks alienating his ally Russia by potentially asking them to choose between protecting him or dealing with the fallout from global government.

What does Turkey stand to gain? Get rid of Assad who they have wanted to get rid of for many many years.
What does Turkey stand to lose? If its not a saran attack they stand to lose the opportunity to get rid of Assad

What do the rebels stand to gain? Toppling of the Assad regime by angry western governments.
What do the rebels stand to lose? Nothing.

While it's no certainty that Assad did not launch the attack out of all parties involved he directly by far stands to lose the most.

Ergo while he may have done as claimed balance of probability says he is innocent of the allegation and other parties are involved in some way.
If you listen to a replay of the World At One, a chemical weapons inspector explains why it was Assad and that he and Russia are lying.

As a matter of interest, where are you in Kent?

frankenstein12

1,915 posts

95 months

Tuesday 11th April 2017
quotequote all
loafer123 said:
frankenstein12 said:
Not that simplistic. Balance of probability.

The questions to ask is.
Who stands to gain?
Who stands to lose?
What do they stand to gain?
What do they stand to lose?

So what does Assad gain from launching a chemical attack? Nothing.
What does he stand to lose? Everything. He loses support of western governments and risks alienating his ally Russia by potentially asking them to choose between protecting him or dealing with the fallout from global government.

What does Turkey stand to gain? Get rid of Assad who they have wanted to get rid of for many many years.
What does Turkey stand to lose? If its not a saran attack they stand to lose the opportunity to get rid of Assad

What do the rebels stand to gain? Toppling of the Assad regime by angry western governments.
What do the rebels stand to lose? Nothing.

While it's no certainty that Assad did not launch the attack out of all parties involved he directly by far stands to lose the most.

Ergo while he may have done as claimed balance of probability says he is innocent of the allegation and other parties are involved in some way.
If you listen to a replay of the World At One, a chemical weapons inspector explains why it was Assad and that he and Russia are lying.

As a matter of interest, where are you in Kent?
Why? Are you going to give Trump the coordinates and claim I have gas so he will bomb my house and local area? tongue out:

I will look for it and give it a listen. The problem here is the inspector is working on theory with Zero evidence just like everyone else involved. It is easily possible to replicate a satin gas attack as I understand it.

Likewise there is video footage from roughly 2013 of so called Syrian rebels showing off a chemical weapons store they had captured. I may be mis remembering but I think one of the chemicals they were bragging about capturing was sarin gas.

loafer123

15,406 posts

214 months

Tuesday 11th April 2017
quotequote all
frankenstein12 said:
loafer123 said:
frankenstein12 said:
Not that simplistic. Balance of probability.

The questions to ask is.
Who stands to gain?
Who stands to lose?
What do they stand to gain?
What do they stand to lose?

So what does Assad gain from launching a chemical attack? Nothing.
What does he stand to lose? Everything. He loses support of western governments and risks alienating his ally Russia by potentially asking them to choose between protecting him or dealing with the fallout from global government.

What does Turkey stand to gain? Get rid of Assad who they have wanted to get rid of for many many years.
What does Turkey stand to lose? If its not a saran attack they stand to lose the opportunity to get rid of Assad

What do the rebels stand to gain? Toppling of the Assad regime by angry western governments.
What do the rebels stand to lose? Nothing.

While it's no certainty that Assad did not launch the attack out of all parties involved he directly by far stands to lose the most.

Ergo while he may have done as claimed balance of probability says he is innocent of the allegation and other parties are involved in some way.
If you listen to a replay of the World At One, a chemical weapons inspector explains why it was Assad and that he and Russia are lying.

As a matter of interest, where are you in Kent?
Why? Are you going to give Trump the coordinates and claim I have gas so he will bomb my house and local area? tongue out:

I will look for it and give it a listen. The problem here is the inspector is working on theory with Zero evidence just like everyone else involved. It is easily possible to replicate a satin gas attack as I understand it.

Likewise there is video footage from roughly 2013 of so called Syrian rebels showing off a chemical weapons store they had captured. I may be mis remembering but I think one of the chemicals they were bragging about capturing was sarin gas.
Nothing so exciting, just curious, as I am in Kent, too.

The inspector is very clear why it must have been an airborne chemical weapon, and not through the release of gas from a bombed warehouse as Assad and Russia claim.

frankenstein12

1,915 posts

95 months

Tuesday 11th April 2017
quotequote all
loafer123 said:
frankenstein12 said:
loafer123 said:
frankenstein12 said:
Not that simplistic. Balance of probability.

The questions to ask is.
Who stands to gain?
Who stands to lose?
What do they stand to gain?
What do they stand to lose?

So what does Assad gain from launching a chemical attack? Nothing.
What does he stand to lose? Everything. He loses support of western governments and risks alienating his ally Russia by potentially asking them to choose between protecting him or dealing with the fallout from global government.

What does Turkey stand to gain? Get rid of Assad who they have wanted to get rid of for many many years.
What does Turkey stand to lose? If its not a saran attack they stand to lose the opportunity to get rid of Assad

What do the rebels stand to gain? Toppling of the Assad regime by angry western governments.
What do the rebels stand to lose? Nothing.

While it's no certainty that Assad did not launch the attack out of all parties involved he directly by far stands to lose the most.

Ergo while he may have done as claimed balance of probability says he is innocent of the allegation and other parties are involved in some way.
If you listen to a replay of the World At One, a chemical weapons inspector explains why it was Assad and that he and Russia are lying.

As a matter of interest, where are you in Kent?
Why? Are you going to give Trump the coordinates and claim I have gas so he will bomb my house and local area? tongue out:

I will look for it and give it a listen. The problem here is the inspector is working on theory with Zero evidence just like everyone else involved. It is easily possible to replicate a satin gas attack as I understand it.

Likewise there is video footage from roughly 2013 of so called Syrian rebels showing off a chemical weapons store they had captured. I may be mis remembering but I think one of the chemicals they were bragging about capturing was sarin gas.
Nothing so exciting, just curious, as I am in Kent, too.

The inspector is very clear why it must have been an airborne chemical weapon, and not through the release of gas from a bombed warehouse as Assad and Russia claim.
Anything is possible and I don't discount Assad may have done as claimed. I am not an expert and as said will need to listen to the world at one chap but i find it impossible to believe he could make any form of definitive judgement without actual evidence.

loafer123

15,406 posts

214 months

Tuesday 11th April 2017
quotequote all
frankenstein12 said:
Anything is possible and I don't discount Assad may have done as claimed. I am not an expert and as said will need to listen to the world at one chap but i find it impossible to believe he could make any form of definitive judgement without actual evidence.
It was to do with dispersal of the chemicals from within buildings...if it was as a result of that, as Assad and Russia claim, the effects would be being felt by people in the area now, as contamination would still be there in concentration. By contrast, the dispersal of airborne lchemical weapons covers a greater area but has a commensurately shorter effect.

frankenstein12

1,915 posts

95 months

Tuesday 11th April 2017
quotequote all
loafer123 said:
frankenstein12 said:
Anything is possible and I don't discount Assad may have done as claimed. I am not an expert and as said will need to listen to the world at one chap but i find it impossible to believe he could make any form of definitive judgement without actual evidence.
It was to do with dispersal of the chemicals from within buildings...if it was as a result of that, as Assad and Russia claim, the effects would be being felt by people in the area now, as contamination would still be there in concentration. By contrast, the dispersal of airborne lchemical weapons covers a greater area but has a commensurately shorter effect.
I would assume that would depend on what chemical was used. If it was not sarin as claimed then the resultant fallout would be different at a guess.

As I have said so many times its all a complete mess with misinformation from all sides. Nothing and no one can be trusted.


AreOut

3,658 posts

160 months

Tuesday 11th April 2017
quotequote all
So, basically, the foundation upon which they assessed the situation & launched $80-90 million in missiles was Al Qaeda's social media posts. Seriously!!???


"The information we have downgraded and declassified includes a wide body of open-source material, both social media accounts. It include open-source videos, reporting, open-source imagery, et cetera, as well as our own geospatial intelligence, our signals intelligence, and it include physiological samples of victims of the attack. And again, all of that tells a very clear and consistent story about what we think happened.
So to be clear, based on the pro-opposition social media reporting, those reports indicate that the chemical attack began in Khan Sheikhun at about 6:55 local time on April 4th. Our information makes quite clear that the attack came from SU-22 fixed-wing aircraft out of the Shayrat airfield, which is regime-controlled. These aircraft were in the vicinity of Khan Sheikhun for about 20 minutes before reports of the chemical attack came out, and they vacated the area shortly after the attack. And I think some of you have seen the information that we shared previously about the tracks of those aircraft that came out of the Khan Sheikhun airfield -- or out of the Shayrat airfield, lingered over Khan Sheikhun, and came back to that airfield...."

frankenstein12

1,915 posts

95 months

Tuesday 11th April 2017
quotequote all
AreOut said:
So, basically, the foundation upon which they assessed the situation & launched $80-90 million in missiles was Al Qaeda's social media posts. Seriously!!???


"The information we have downgraded and declassified includes a wide body of open-source material, both social media accounts. It include open-source videos, reporting, open-source imagery, et cetera, as well as our own geospatial intelligence, our signals intelligence, and it include physiological samples of victims of the attack. And again, all of that tells a very clear and consistent story about what we think happened.
So to be clear, based on the pro-opposition social media reporting, those reports indicate that the chemical attack began in Khan Sheikhun at about 6:55 local time on April 4th. Our information makes quite clear that the attack came from SU-22 fixed-wing aircraft out of the Shayrat airfield, which is regime-controlled. These aircraft were in the vicinity of Khan Sheikhun for about 20 minutes before reports of the chemical attack came out, and they vacated the area shortly after the attack. And I think some of you have seen the information that we shared previously about the tracks of those aircraft that came out of the Khan Sheikhun airfield -- or out of the Shayrat airfield, lingered over Khan Sheikhun, and came back to that airfield...."
Wow hold on there a second. They have physiological samples of victims of the attack provided by Turkey. Well that clears it right up. It was deffo Assad the monster.

On another note Russia are playing a blinder by stating their Intel suggests there will shortly be another chemical weapons attack.

mickytruelove

420 posts

110 months

Wednesday 12th April 2017
quotequote all
Yep, as soon as i read any evidence came from turkey i make the conclusion its bullst. Meant to be an ally but not to be trusted.

Sylvaforever

2,212 posts

97 months

Wednesday 12th April 2017
quotequote all
loafer123 said:
frankenstein12 said:
Anything is possible and I don't discount Assad may have done as claimed. I am not an expert and as said will need to listen to the world at one chap but i find it impossible to believe he could make any form of definitive judgement without actual evidence.
It was to do with dispersal of the chemicals from within buildings...if it was as a result of that, as Assad and Russia claim, the effects would be being felt by people in the area now, as contamination would still be there in concentration. By contrast, the dispersal of airborne lchemical weapons covers a greater area but has a commensurately shorter effect.
Apologies loafer, I misread your post. However the effects of nerve agents go beyond aerosols persistantcy is designed in as a solid or liquid hazard producing a vapour hazard downwind.
Battlefield effects are however designed to be short lived ie kill everything in your path but have the effects dispersed by the time you get there, there are other agents more suited and robust to this than nerve.. Blood perhaps being the most obvious..

johnxjsc1985

15,948 posts

163 months

Wednesday 12th April 2017
quotequote all
Putin suggesting "the West" are going to plant evidence in Damascus to prove the chemical weapons came from Assad's regime.

skyrover

12,668 posts

203 months

Wednesday 12th April 2017
quotequote all
Here is a cartoon illustrating the different cultural approaches to truth between the American's and the Russians


BlackLabel

13,251 posts

122 months

BlackLabel

13,251 posts

122 months

Monday 24th April 2017
quotequote all
From Pew

pewresearch said:
Nearly four-in-ten Democrats (39%) name Russia as the country that represents the greatest danger to the United States – the highest percentage expressing this view in nearly three decades, according to a new survey.
pewresearch said:
Overall, 31% of Americans, answering an open-ended question, cite Russia as the country representing the greatest danger to the U.S., while 22% point to North Korea. The shares naming both countries are among their highest dating back to 1990.