Chemical Weapons

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Right, you're planning to rid well financed, mainly foreign Islamic fundamentalist fanatical rebels, who (On this premise if not in your head) are facing defeat and death and have launched chemical attacks on civilians with a multi lateral, legal, well planned operation, in a sovereign country, how exactly?

I'm not, because I don't think they have them. How would you plan to rid them of them? Got a link for your opinion on that?

[dennis tooth]

As solution to what? A strategy for what? Sorting out 'the rebels' who definitely carried out the attack? No, I don't. Post another article telling me what you think, you original thinking maverick, you.

 

Stick to the script here, its called a premise, given you dont know it was Assad, given the Intelligence agencies and the UN have not claimed it was Assad, you should be considering, as a well informed member of society as yourself surely, the possibility it was the rebels.

 

We can always explore your favourite theme that you have a hard on for, that it was Assad, later on, where you can outline your visionary wisdom but for now Id like you to concentrate on this theme.

[dennis tooth]

I'm not, because I don't think they have them. How would you plan to rid them of them? Got a link for your opinion on that?

Yeah, as I suspected, the thought hadnt even entered you're mind.

 

Failed.

 

 

So, what makes you so sure? Whats the smoking gun you have given you claim to be an evidencial based thinker?

[dennis tooth]

I'm not, because I don't think they have them. How would you plan to rid them of them? Got a link for your opinion on that?

 

 

Perhaps by not cheerleading the USA and various official enemies of Syria financing and arming them mentalists in the first place as you did?

[dennis tooth]

Dennis, you've already established how stupid I am, how much of a useless, characterless buffoon I am, a person who is only capable of regurgitating what I read in the Guardian, why are you getting so worked up about my stupid, idiotic opinion?

 

Now, being such an original thinker, why don't you copy and past something else and get on with it rather than posting months old interviews which the actual UN have backtracked from?

 

Why so koi?

Is this too challenging for you? Too much thinking expected on your part, are the victims and potential future victims not worthy of your consideration?

Of course, Carla Del POnte is to be mocked, she definately has more of a vested interest in this that the likes of the USA, Isreal, France and Uk and I suppose you think she is making up the real life accounts and witnesses she is referring to in some sort of rogue action independant of the UN?

Well her remit is to act independantly of the UN so might be an issue with your thinking there but I will consider it if you would be more forthcoming on the matter?

Of course its to be scoffed at, dismissed, not considered, cos thats how it works when youve prejudged a situation and gotten misinformed. Cant go back, cant go back. 

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

I've said it was the Syrian Regime, and the Intelligence agencies most certainly have pointed at them. Not that I'd rule out the possibility of Assad having given the order himself, I just see no way of proving that. As Hayden said, it's a distinction without a difference. I've also accepted the technical possibility, even despite there being not one thin shred of evidence, that it was the rebels.

 

Are you even capable of reading what I've written, or don't you bother with that? If you had any basic level of reading comprehension, you wouldn't have claimed 1) I listed my 'credentials' (I said I wouldn't list them) 2) that I said they should 'bomb stockpiles of weapons' (I said they wouldn't) 3) that I've been cheerleading the sales of weapons to 'rebels'.

 

As for Del Ponte, I've not mocked or dismissed anything she said. I'm just waiting for the evidence from May. I was mocking you and your reporting of what she said, which was they needed to know more but testimonies (from the people you just claimed were pro-Assad, you fucking mental cunt) suggested it was rebels. Fine, now let's see the report and the evidence from May - months before this attack on the 21st - and we can discuss that. We can also discuss why the UN immediately backtracked from that. No? Too much thinking.

 

Anyway, I've got to go out. I look forward to 12 posts in a row, all higgledy-piggldy, all written like hickory dockery dick, which I can then translate into English.

[dennis tooth]

And dont forget your solution/strategy for the scenario that it was Assad Im still counting on when Ive finished laughing at your ridiculous prejudgement of the ongoing UN investigations.

 

Feel free to provide it also. You've written so much, it would be a shame if I were to miss out on this bit because in either case, bombs are a ridiculous solution that will clearly make things worse.

I cant breathe with giggling at your ideas for dealing with either situation, what little you have outlined anyway, most your words are just lecturing and belittling people, you actually write very little of substance. Its hard work drawing it out of you, again since we've been discussing this today its 25% substance 75% insults/belittling/lecturing/strawmanning etc.

[Red Phoenix]

Still researching this. After looking at the report again and reading around about these supposed weapons coming from bases, which is starting to look dodgy, when you look at the tests for chemical weapons on the Moadamiyah findings, which are for the M14 rocket, the inspectors found no traces at all of chemical weapons.

 

So as far as I can tell at the moment, the UN report doesn't fully connect M14 rockets to the chemical weapons attacks at all. Unless you want to say the M14 rocket found was part of the attack even though it had no traces of sarin on it.

 

Yet we have HRW, who are also getting accused by people as being a propaganda front for the US government, plotting paths linking the M14 rockets to the Syrian military base. But like I said, go to the UN report, check the Moadamiyah M14 rocket, then go to the end of the report and check the findings for the 26th, and there's no trace of sarin, which would be listed as "GB" on the charts. Instead it just says "None".

 

Human Rights Watch have also been accused of making up propaganda in the South Ossetia War and the Libya conflict, when they stated that Russian and Libyan forces used cluster bombs, only to find out that it was NATO and Georgia that used them instead. So maybe it's best to at least be wary when reading the HRW version of events.

[dennis tooth]

I've said it was the Syrian Regime, and the Intelligence agencies most certainly have pointed at them.

 

Not that I'd rule out the possibility of Assad having given the order himself, I just see no way of proving that. As Hayden said, it's a distinction without a difference. I've also accepted the technical possibility, even despite there being not one thin shred of evidence, that it was the rebels.

 

Are you even capable of reading what I've written, or don't you bother with that? If you had any basic level of reading comprehension, you wouldn't have claimed 1) I listed my 'credentials' (I said I wouldn't list them) 2) that I said they should 'bomb stockpiles of weapons' (I said they wouldn't) 3) that I've been cheerleading the sales of weapons to 'rebels'.

 

As for Del Ponte, I've not mocked or dismissed anything she said. I'm just waiting for the evidence from May. I was mocking you and your reporting of what she said, which was they needed to know more but testimonies (from the people you just claimed were pro-Assad, you fucking mental cunt) suggested it was rebels. Fine, now let's see the report and the evidence from May - months before this attack on the 21st - and we can discuss that. We can also discuss why the UN immediately backtracked from that. No? Too much thinking.

 

Anyway, I've got to go out. I look forward to 12 posts in a row, all higgledy-piggldy, all written like hickory dockery dick, which I can then translate into English.

 

 

Er, which ones?

What have they said?

Even US intelligence officials argue that the responsibility of the Syrian government, let alone Assad, is no 'slam dunk'. Chemical weapons experts are also clear that much doubt remains. 

You still have provided no motive other than he is a 'madman' line. No need for UN inspectors to gather factual evidence of chemical weapons use by the Assad regime.

The rebels, on the other hand, have many good reasons to stage such an attack.'

 

Like the rebels arent made up of loads madmen or Obama is not a madman

Again, why would he do this? 

 

And the 2nd part Ive highlighted, you see no way of proving Assad gave the order but thats irrelevant as proving a rebel commander gave the order surely? Bit of a red herring that once again desperately thrown in. 

[Red Phoenix]

And yes, there's people saying the UN inspection team could've had bias too. Those people also include the Russian government, who said they provided the UN team evidence, which they decided not to add into the report.

[Red Phoenix]

Another narrative I'm increasingly seeing is this : Syrian rebels and western agencies go to crazy lengths to create scenarios that make it look like al-Assad's forces did the chemical weapons attacks. When people question those scenarios they're accused of creating conspiracy theories. The mainstream media are pretty much bought and paid for at this point, especially when you have even The Guardian looking totally biased on the whole thing, so anyone trying to find the truth has to resort to lesser known sites, and yes, independent researchers using blogs. When people link these blogs/sites after failing to find mainstream media doing its job properly, the sources are then determined to be not good enough. Or at the last resort, if all else fails, just simply attack the people trying to find the truth.

 

This is maybe one reason why these debates always seem to go around in circles. Then the truth comes out later on, but it's something like "Yeah well fuck that, that was ages ago, we're talking about the [insert name] regime now." Well fuck that way of going about things too, then. We should look at history, not just brush it aside.

 

"Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

 

From what I can tell it's clear that al-Assad runs his country using fascist methods, and there's no way I'm supporting a fascist, but that just makes it easier to accuse him of doing all types of things in the end, including chemical weapons attacks. It doesn't mean he did them though. The best way to resolve this would be for a ceasefire and then talks, not western fucking bombs. The west doesn't seem to be pushing for a ceasefire though, it seems to be pushing for war, and that's why they look so fucking stupid with all of this.

 

The majority of the populations of the western countries do not want western bombs going into Syria, doesn't stop the politicians from trying though does it? I wonder how many US politicians are funded directly or indirectly by western defence corporations and/or groups like Brookings, Human Rights Watch, AIPAC, and so on. That could be interesting.

[Sugar Ape]

Your problem is you are too stupid to realise you are stupid.

[Red Phoenix]

Your problem is you are too stupid to realise you are stupid.

 

How ironic. Do some fucking research.

[Sugar Ape]

Why don't you ' research ' getting a fucking job you half-wit.

[Red Phoenix]

Why don't you ' research ' getting a fucking job you half-wit.

 

Like I said, if all else fails, attack the poster. It at least saves you from researching though, right? It's quicker and easier.

[Sugar Ape]

Like I said, if all else fails, attack the poster. It at least saves you from researching though, right? It's quicker and easier.

Research? You're just a fucking bum, like it means anything that you're sitting there clicking on some websites. You don't even understand what your posting half the time which has been pointed out.

 

So the Guardian are totally biased on this issue, because they are obviously under the thumb of western governments. But, hang on, didn't they publish the leaked documents from Edward Snowden? Bet their US paymasters were fuming over that.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

 

 

I'm on my phone at the moment, but Ape and I are easily clever enough to know we're stupid. Easily.

 

[dennis tooth]

Insult

Insult

Snowden.

 

 

You're in good company with ape there Numero.

'Ive got to go out'.

Someone turns up who is on your side and suddenly you appear behind them going 'yeah'.

 

Have you got a dicktionary on your pedastel Numero? Look up 'bully' and 'coward' mate.

[Sugar Ape]

Yer ma

Yer ma

Must be gutted she gave birth to you.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Insult

Insult

Snowden.

This might be totally wide of the mark, but I think you might have posted an insult before. Maybe even more than once. Maybe even in almost every post you make.

 

 

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Insult, insult, snowden, bully, coward.

[dennis tooth]

Vitaly Churkin: "The results of the analysis clearly indicate that the ordnance used in Khan al-Assal was not industrially manufactured and was filled with sarin. The sarin technical specifications prove that it was not industrially manufactured either. The absence of chemical stabilizers in the samples of the detected toxic agents indicate the relatively recent production. The projectile involved is not a standard one for chemical use. Hexogen utilized as an opening charge is not used in standard ammunitions. Therefore, there is every reason to believe that it was the armed opposition fighters who used the chemical weapons in Khan al-Assal."

[dennis tooth]

Wow, you can write all that from your 'phone' numero, its like you've never been gone or never went anywhere.

[dennis tooth]

This might be totally wide of the mark, but I think you might have posted an insult before. Maybe even more than once. Maybe even in almost every post you make.

 

I tend to put them to one side when we're talking about serious stuff.

[Red Phoenix]

Research? You're just a fucking bum, like it means anything that you're sitting there clicking on some websites. You don't even understand what your posting half the time which has been pointed out.

 

So the Guardian are totally biased on this issue, because they are obviously under the thumb of western governments. But, hang on, didn't they publish the leaked documents from Edward Snowden? Bet their US paymasters were fuming over that.

 

So being on ESA with depression is just a fucking bum, cool. Thanks.

 

The Guardian are brilliant with the NSA story and I have a lot of respect for them for doing that. It's also the only paper I buy when I do occasionally get one instead of reading online. The NSA coverage is mainly down to the fact that they have Glenn Greenwald with them though. Their Syria coverage is biased.

 

"Sitting there and clicking on some websites." That's brilliant, well done. Respect to you too. I'll go back to bumming around with depression and leeching from society as I do so. Maybe I should slightly up my dose of these big pharma pills I have here, they might speed the recovery up.

 

If all else fails attack the poster, not the information. Doing some research might help, unless you refuse to let go of the version of events you have of what's happening in Syria. I apologize for saying "do some fucking research", it was overly blunt and stupid. I wouldn't have said that to your face and I always try to say what I'd also say to someone's face as I post online now. I'd still have suggested you do some research though, and I think it might help you if you do.

 

By the way - "you don't even understand what you're posting half the time" : I posted a video of something I thought was a BM-14 launcher and got it wrong, which is also ironic as it now looks like there's no solid evidence that M14 rocket artillery was used to deliver sarin anyway. I don't think that means I only understand half of my posts.