Meanwhile, In Syria
Discussion
Pupp said:
Wish I had looked voltairenetwork up on wikipedia before clicking that link... think I will trust the Beeb in preference to that if all the same
...and South Front blog is made to sound as if it is in some way connected to the US backed Southern Front when it is in fact another .ru mouthpiece.Phil
Never sure who to believe with regards the use of gases.
Usual and immediate West threats, where are they getting their info? but no real action.
The White Helmets [which side are they on?]; and they have been discredited before
Russia, who believes them at the moment
Syria, haven't said too much.
Something for me doesn't add up with all this but the amount of fake news coming out of there, who do you believe??
Is Israel at war with Syria? Can Syria therefore, legitimately, bomb Israel?
Usual and immediate West threats, where are they getting their info? but no real action.
The White Helmets [which side are they on?]; and they have been discredited before
Russia, who believes them at the moment
Syria, haven't said too much.
Something for me doesn't add up with all this but the amount of fake news coming out of there, who do you believe??
Is Israel at war with Syria? Can Syria therefore, legitimately, bomb Israel?
Reading between the lines of the media from various sources, to me, it seems like "the rebels" are the ones that would benefit from a chemical attack.
These are the rebels that have been holding a large number of civilians as hostage in their battle zone as human shields and as convenient casualties of conflict to parade on the news.
Rebels that have 'reportedly' staged previous chemical attacks.
The same rebels that mortared the previous evacuation attempts and killed a number of medical and innocent people as they were trying to leave.
No doubt though, the portrayal of kids caught up in a chemical attack is very powerful media.
Assad is slowly 'winning' this war, there would be no gain for him to give the USA a 'free ride in' by using chemical weapons.
I guess in the absence of trustworthy news there should be a reality check on simple logic.
These are the rebels that have been holding a large number of civilians as hostage in their battle zone as human shields and as convenient casualties of conflict to parade on the news.
Rebels that have 'reportedly' staged previous chemical attacks.
The same rebels that mortared the previous evacuation attempts and killed a number of medical and innocent people as they were trying to leave.
No doubt though, the portrayal of kids caught up in a chemical attack is very powerful media.
Assad is slowly 'winning' this war, there would be no gain for him to give the USA a 'free ride in' by using chemical weapons.
I guess in the absence of trustworthy news there should be a reality check on simple logic.
Atomic12C said:
Reading between the lines of the media from various sources, to me, it seems like "the rebels" are the ones that would benefit from a chemical attack.
These are the rebels that have been holding a large number of civilians as hostage in their battle zone as human shields and as convenient casualties of conflict to parade on the news.
Rebels that have 'reportedly' staged previous chemical attacks.
The same rebels that mortared the previous evacuation attempts and killed a number of medical and innocent people as they were trying to leave.
No doubt though, the portrayal of kids caught up in a chemical attack is very powerful media.
Assad is slowly 'winning' this war, there would be no gain for him to give the USA a 'free ride in' by using chemical weapons.
I guess in the absence of trustworthy news there should be a reality check on simple logic.
+1These are the rebels that have been holding a large number of civilians as hostage in their battle zone as human shields and as convenient casualties of conflict to parade on the news.
Rebels that have 'reportedly' staged previous chemical attacks.
The same rebels that mortared the previous evacuation attempts and killed a number of medical and innocent people as they were trying to leave.
No doubt though, the portrayal of kids caught up in a chemical attack is very powerful media.
Assad is slowly 'winning' this war, there would be no gain for him to give the USA a 'free ride in' by using chemical weapons.
I guess in the absence of trustworthy news there should be a reality check on simple logic.
WCZ said:
Atomic12C said:
Reading between the lines of the media from various sources, to me, it seems like "the rebels" are the ones that would benefit from a chemical attack.
These are the rebels that have been holding a large number of civilians as hostage in their battle zone as human shields and as convenient casualties of conflict to parade on the news.
Rebels that have 'reportedly' staged previous chemical attacks.
The same rebels that mortared the previous evacuation attempts and killed a number of medical and innocent people as they were trying to leave.
No doubt though, the portrayal of kids caught up in a chemical attack is very powerful media.
Assad is slowly 'winning' this war, there would be no gain for him to give the USA a 'free ride in' by using chemical weapons.
I guess in the absence of trustworthy news there should be a reality check on simple logic.
+1These are the rebels that have been holding a large number of civilians as hostage in their battle zone as human shields and as convenient casualties of conflict to parade on the news.
Rebels that have 'reportedly' staged previous chemical attacks.
The same rebels that mortared the previous evacuation attempts and killed a number of medical and innocent people as they were trying to leave.
No doubt though, the portrayal of kids caught up in a chemical attack is very powerful media.
Assad is slowly 'winning' this war, there would be no gain for him to give the USA a 'free ride in' by using chemical weapons.
I guess in the absence of trustworthy news there should be a reality check on simple logic.
Atomic12C said:
Assad is slowly 'winning' this war, there would be no gain for him to give the USA a 'free ride in' by using chemical weapons.
I guess in the absence of trustworthy news there should be a reality check on simple logic.
+3 I guess in the absence of trustworthy news there should be a reality check on simple logic.
False flag. Fake news. Just to give Israel or the US the excuse they have been waiting for.And insultingly blatantly done. We know it's crap. They know we know. And they don't give a s
t.Israel doesn't need any excuse, having iranian forces in Syria is enough for them to strike. OTOH USA and other western countries need at least part of their electorate to believe in the story before bombing, although judging by comments even people who don't follow syrian war closely aren't that convinced...crying wolf works less and less the more you repeat it.
grumbledoak said:
+3
False flag. Fake news. Just to give Israel or the US the excuse they have been waiting for.
And insultingly blatantly done. We know it's crap. They know we know. And they don't give a st.
+4 False flag. Fake news. Just to give Israel or the US the excuse they have been waiting for.And insultingly blatantly done. We know it's crap. They know we know. And they don't give a s
t.Watching the BBC 'News' channel at 7 this evening was a joke - the presenters didn't even try to stick to the known facts. Just full on 'manufacturing consent' for the inevitable direct intervention seeing as how attempting to destabilise the country hasn't worked.
Burwood said:
Is the consensus, chemical weapons didn’t factor or are you saying they were used by the rebels? Perhaps even sanctioned by some western power? It still doesn’t change the fact that Assad should go
Whether Assad should go is down to the people of Syria and the people of Syria alone. It should not be forced upon him or the people of Syria which is what the US is trying to do.Watched the UNSC meeting today. VERY strong words from Russia blatantly accusing the US of interfering openy pointing out the US had been arming the rebels and going so far as to accuse US experts of teaching the so called rebels how to create Chemical weapons.
Also claimed to have evidence of the skripol case chemical weapons possibly being sent from syria and that the UK government knows and is walking back because of it as they are concerned they bit off more than they could chew by doing the US bidding.
Also claimed to have evidence of the skripol case chemical weapons possibly being sent from syria and that the UK government knows and is walking back because of it as they are concerned they bit off more than they could chew by doing the US bidding.
If the rebels had the capability to launch chemical weopon attacks then why don’t they do so against Assad’s troops?
I get the whole “Assad is winning so why the hell would he go down this route” argument however leaders and dictators don’t always act rationally - rational people don’t bomb the hell out of their own civilians in the first place.
I get the whole “Assad is winning so why the hell would he go down this route” argument however leaders and dictators don’t always act rationally - rational people don’t bomb the hell out of their own civilians in the first place.
Pupp said:
frankenstein12 said:
Whether Assad should go is down to the people of Syria and the people of Syria alone. It should not be forced upon him or the people of Syria which is what the US is trying to do.
By that measure, is it right for him to be propped up by Russia and Iran? Frankly i would rather russia and iran were propping him up than he is removed as it would turn Syria into the same s
thole the rest of the middle east has become through the US spreading their idea of democracy.BlackLabel said:
If the rebels had the capability to launch chemical weopon attacks then why don’t they do so against Assad’s troops?
I get the whole “Assad is winning so why the hell would he go down this route” argument however leaders and dictators don’t always act rationally - rational people don’t bomb the hell out of their own civilians in the first place.
They have do so on a number of occasions however it doesnt make mainstream media as it flies in the face of the popular narrative that Assad is evil. If the MSM report Assad troops being targeted with chem weapons then they cannot claim Assad is deffo attacking civilians with chemical weapons as the public would ask how they can tell the difference between Assads chem weapons attacks and the "rebels" aka terrorists.I get the whole “Assad is winning so why the hell would he go down this route” argument however leaders and dictators don’t always act rationally - rational people don’t bomb the hell out of their own civilians in the first place.
BlackLabel said:
If the rebels had the capability to launch chemical weopon attacks then why don’t they do so against Assad’s troops?
they don't have planes and adapting artillery for using chemical weapons isn't that easy, regardless there were reports they did it couple of times with improvised launchers, happened a year or two ago near turkish border IIRCThis whole thing is incomprehensible. The region has been at war for what, 25 years? Longer, actually. I found the BBC editorial quite interesting: "The US is looking at military action involving France and the UK to respond to the chemical attack for which the Assad regime is suspect"...
On top of that now MBS (Saudi Crown Prince) is now on a world tour charm offensive having coffee with all those who matter. What would he be talking about? Not Yemen, I am sure. No word on Yemen lately, come to think of it. Yet people are still being shelled there. Obviously less important as Russians aren't involved.
On top of that now MBS (Saudi Crown Prince) is now on a world tour charm offensive having coffee with all those who matter. What would he be talking about? Not Yemen, I am sure. No word on Yemen lately, come to think of it. Yet people are still being shelled there. Obviously less important as Russians aren't involved.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff