Russian MOD warned of 'False Flag' Syrian Chemical Attack 33 days ago

What's Hot
MarshallMarshall Frets: 141
edited April 14 in Politics Economics
https://apnews.com/bd3ae8c8cb3e49b5bcc80847e2e2173a

Didn't see this reported in the UK 'Echo Chamber'

"Truth is treason in the empire of lies” G.Orwell

Feedback link -  http://www.thefretboard.co.uk/discussion/133389/marshall#latest

0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
«134

Comments

  • HeartfeltdawnHeartfeltdawn Frets: 11052
    I've seen dubious links saying that it wasn't a chemical weapons attack and that local medical staff were treating people for smoke inhalation. But then I've seen other links saying that it was a chemical weapons attack featuring insurgents trained by America. So who do I believe? 
    I make Jeremy Paxman look like Fingermouse. 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • VimFuegoVimFuego Frets: 6185
    I've seen dubious links saying that it wasn't a chemical weapons attack and that local medical staff were treating people for smoke inhalation. But then I've seen other links saying that it was a chemical weapons attack featuring insurgents trained by America. So who do I believe? 
    it's pretty easy actually, who ever shouts the loudest or uses the most CAPS LOCK is the most right (remember there is no absolute right or wrong anymore, it's all a sliding scale)

    I'm not locked in here with you, you are locked in here with me.

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • ClarkyClarky Frets: 2881
    there is so much information, mis-information, fact and lies out there that people can just decide to believe what the want to believe..
    and then pronounce themselves as being well informed
    play every note as if it were your first
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • FretwiredFretwired Frets: 16299
    Macron said he had positive proof (France was a major ally of Syria and has friends in high places) that Assad did it. I'm sure the Russians could prove it wasn't them by allowing UN inspectors into Syria while there was evidence to collect.

    There is also an interesting angle from a senior ex-British army officer that the attack was deliberate with the aim of goading the west into an attack. It's given Russia a PR coup with many people in the UK, France and the USA saying its illegal and is a destabilising issue in the politics of those involved. Corbyn is going to get a parliamentary vote to remove the PMs prerogative and to only allow the UK to take part in actions approved by the UN. Russia can cause a lot of trouble for Trump, May and Macron.

    And this week should be interesting. Russia is going to release 'explosive' material on British Tory MPs and Mrs May. I've no idea what it is but I think we can guess.
    My pump-action drivel gun is smoking hot today!
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • HeartfeltdawnHeartfeltdawn Frets: 11052
    Fretwired said:

    And this week should be interesting. Russia is going to release 'explosive' material on British Tory MPs and Mrs May. I've no idea what it is but I think we can guess.
    That they're bloody useless and she's not very good at appearing human in public? 
    I make Jeremy Paxman look like Fingermouse. 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • FretwiredFretwired Frets: 16299
    Fretwired said:

    And this week should be interesting. Russia is going to release 'explosive' material on British Tory MPs and Mrs May. I've no idea what it is but I think we can guess.
    That they're bloody useless and she's not very good at appearing human in public? 
    May having an affair and dodging tax and sniffing lines of coke **


    ** Internet rumours - unsubstantiated ...
    My pump-action drivel gun is smoking hot today!
    1reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • MarshallMarshall Frets: 141
    Fretwired said:
    Macron said he had positive proof (France was a major ally of Syria and has friends in high places) that Assad did it
    Oh well in that case it must be true then 

    "Truth is treason in the empire of lies” G.Orwell

    Feedback link -  http://www.thefretboard.co.uk/discussion/133389/marshall#latest

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 2reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • MarshallMarshall Frets: 141
    edited April 15
    I've seen dubious links saying that it wasn't a chemical weapons attack and that local medical staff were treating people for smoke inhalation. But then I've seen other links saying that it was a chemical weapons attack featuring insurgents trained by America. So who do I believe? 
    The date of the AP article was the significance, as to the rest, you could do worse than believe no-one 

    I would say it is significant that the 'Allies' were in such a rush to 'get their gun off' that they couldn't wait another 6 hours for the OCPW to arrive and initiate their investigation. Clearly in these dark times real evidence is no longer of primary concern to those who have self assigned themselves 'Judge, Jury and Executioner' 

    "Truth is treason in the empire of lies” G.Orwell

    Feedback link -  http://www.thefretboard.co.uk/discussion/133389/marshall#latest

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 2reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • HeartfeltdawnHeartfeltdawn Frets: 11052
    Fretwired said:
    May having an affair and dodging tax and sniffing lines of coke **


    ** Internet rumours - unsubstantiated ...

    The Commies will spread rumours that she's going to replace Bottas at Mercedes... 
    I make Jeremy Paxman look like Fingermouse. 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • HeartfeltdawnHeartfeltdawn Frets: 11052
    Marshall said:
    I've seen dubious links saying that it wasn't a chemical weapons attack and that local medical staff were treating people for smoke inhalation. But then I've seen other links saying that it was a chemical weapons attack featuring insurgents trained by America. So who do I believe? 
    The date of the AP article was the significance, as to the rest, you could do worse than believe no-one 

    I would say it is significant that the 'Allies' were in such a rush to 'get their gun off' that they couldn't wait another 6 hours for the OCPW to arrive and initiate their investigation. Clearly in these dark times real evidence is no longer of primary concern to those who have self assigned themselves 'Judge, Jury and Executioner' 
    Some of the mainstream news sites = don't go deep enough.
    Most of the conspiracy sites = go so far over the top that the plausible bits end up squashed by seas of idiocy. 

    And really the problem for us plebs is that neither side presents rock solid evidence to us.

    What is striking over here was a scan of some right-wing forums and Twitter users. After getting over the amusement of them rebelling against Rees-Mogg for denouncing Enoch Powell, so many people were against the Syrian strikes. Whereas military action usually shores up an American president (aside from GWB, Clinton certainly used military action to present a stronger image of himself), for a British Prime Minister in recent years it has been a disaster. It is demonstrative of a huge lack of trust in our leaders. 
    I make Jeremy Paxman look like Fingermouse. 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • FretwiredFretwired Frets: 16299

    Some of the mainstream news sites = don't go deep enough.
    Most of the conspiracy sites = go so far over the top that the plausible bits end up squashed by seas of idiocy. 

    And really the problem for us plebs is that neither side presents rock solid evidence to us.

    What is striking over here was a scan of some right-wing forums and Twitter users. After getting over the amusement of them rebelling against Rees-Mogg for denouncing Enoch Powell, so many people were against the Syrian strikes. Whereas military action usually shores up an American president (aside from GWB, Clinton certainly used military action to present a stronger image of himself), for a British Prime Minister in recent years it has been a disaster. It is demonstrative of a huge lack of trust in our leaders. 
    With the right its more about racism. Why should British military personnel and the public be put at risk if Assad wants to kill his own people (add racist twist about skin colour and religion). But you're right - always does PM harm.
    My pump-action drivel gun is smoking hot today!
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • FretwiredFretwired Frets: 16299
    Fretwired said:
    May having an affair and dodging tax and sniffing lines of coke **


    ** Internet rumours - unsubstantiated ...

    The Commies will spread rumours that she's going to replace Bottas at Mercedes... 
    Unlikely .. Bottas is May's love child ...
    My pump-action drivel gun is smoking hot today!
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • MarshallMarshall Frets: 141
    edited April 15
    Marshall said:
    I've seen dubious links saying that it wasn't a chemical weapons attack and that local medical staff were treating people for smoke inhalation. But then I've seen other links saying that it was a chemical weapons attack featuring insurgents trained by America. So who do I believe? 
    The date of the AP article was the significance, as to the rest, you could do worse than believe no-one 

    I would say it is significant that the 'Allies' were in such a rush to 'get their gun off' that they couldn't wait another 6 hours for the OCPW to arrive and initiate their investigation. Clearly in these dark times real evidence is no longer of primary concern to those who have self assigned themselves 'Judge, Jury and Executioner' 
    Some of the mainstream news sites = don't go deep enough.
    Most of the conspiracy sites = go so far over the top that the plausible bits end up squashed by seas of idiocy. 

    Quite indisputably so...I'd go further though, to say that the MSM's primary roll appears to be conspicuously less about 'News' at all - at least in the old school sense of 'news' - and more about shaping, controlling and directing public opinion in line with the narrative pre-approved by those 'calling the shots' so to speak

    Marshall said:
    I've seen dubious links saying that it wasn't a chemical weapons attack and that local medical staff were treating people for smoke inhalation. But then I've seen other links saying that it was a chemical weapons attack featuring insurgents trained by America. So who do I believe? 
    The date of the AP article was the significance, as to the rest, you could do worse than believe no-one 

    I would say it is significant that the 'Allies' were in such a rush to 'get their gun off' that they couldn't wait another 6 hours for the OCPW to arrive and initiate their investigation. Clearly in these dark times real evidence is no longer of primary concern to those who have self assigned themselves 'Judge, Jury and Executioner' 

    What is striking over here was a scan of some right-wing forums and Twitter users. After getting over the amusement of them rebelling against Rees-Mogg for denouncing Enoch Powell, so many people were against the Syrian strikes. Whereas military action usually shores up an American president (aside from GWB, Clinton certainly used military action to present a stronger image of himself), for a British Prime Minister in recent years it has been a disaster. It is demonstrative of a huge lack of trust in our leaders. 
    Yes, interesting it is, made more so by the unilateral action we are now consistently witnessing with the 'Allies'..by now it seems the UNSC is little more than a minor adjunct to Western exceptionalism

    "Truth is treason in the empire of lies” G.Orwell

    Feedback link -  http://www.thefretboard.co.uk/discussion/133389/marshall#latest

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • HeartfeltdawnHeartfeltdawn Frets: 11052
    Marshall said:
    Quite indisputably so...I'd go further though, to say that the MSM's primary roll appears to be conspicuously less about 'News' at all - at least in the old school sense of 'news' - and more about shaping, controlling and directing public opinion in line with the narrative 'pre-approved' by those 'calling the shots' so to speak

    Marshall said:
    I've seen dubious links saying that it wasn't a chemical weapons attack and that local medical staff were treating people for smoke inhalation. But then I've seen other links saying that it was a chemical weapons attack featuring insurgents trained by America. So who do I believe? 
    The date of the AP article was the significance, as to the rest, you could do worse than believe no-one 

    I would say it is significant that the 'Allies' were in such a rush to 'get their gun off' that they couldn't wait another 6 hours for the OCPW to arrive and initiate their investigation. Clearly in these dark times real evidence is no longer of primary concern to those who have self assigned themselves 'Judge, Jury and Executioner' 

    What is striking over here was a scan of some right-wing forums and Twitter users. After getting over the amusement of them rebelling against Rees-Mogg for denouncing Enoch Powell, so many people were against the Syrian strikes. Whereas military action usually shores up an American president (aside from GWB, Clinton certainly used military action to present a stronger image of himself), for a British Prime Minister in recent years it has been a disaster. It is demonstrative of a huge lack of trust in our leaders. 
    Yes, interesting it is, made more so by the unilateral action we are now consistently witnessing with the 'Allies'..by now it seems the UNSC is little more than a minor adjunct to Western exceptionalism
    You complain about the MSM. Why do you not apply the same critique to the conspiracy news sites? They're just as much about shaping public opinion to fall in line with a pre-approved narrative. In the case of Globalresearch as you linked to earlier, the whiff of Jew blaming is massive on that site. 


    I make Jeremy Paxman look like Fingermouse. 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • HeartfeltdawnHeartfeltdawn Frets: 11052
    Marshall said:
    Yes, interesting it is, made more so by the unilateral action we are now consistently witnessing with the 'Allies'..by now it seems the UNSC is little more than a minor adjunct to Western exceptionalism

    Then ask yourself why Russia vetoed a UNSC resolution last October on a year-long extension of investigations into chemical weapon attacks in Syria. 

    https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-vetoes-un-chemical-weapons-resolution/28813467.html

    I make Jeremy Paxman look like Fingermouse. 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • MarshallMarshall Frets: 141
    Marshall said:
    Quite indisputably so...I'd go further though, to say that the MSM's primary roll appears to be conspicuously less about 'News' at all - at least in the old school sense of 'news' - and more about shaping, controlling and directing public opinion in line with the narrative 'pre-approved' by those 'calling the shots' so to speak

    Marshall said:
    I've seen dubious links saying that it wasn't a chemical weapons attack and that local medical staff were treating people for smoke inhalation. But then I've seen other links saying that it was a chemical weapons attack featuring insurgents trained by America. So who do I believe? 
    The date of the AP article was the significance, as to the rest, you could do worse than believe no-one 

    I would say it is significant that the 'Allies' were in such a rush to 'get their gun off' that they couldn't wait another 6 hours for the OCPW to arrive and initiate their investigation. Clearly in these dark times real evidence is no longer of primary concern to those who have self assigned themselves 'Judge, Jury and Executioner' 

    What is striking over here was a scan of some right-wing forums and Twitter users. After getting over the amusement of them rebelling against Rees-Mogg for denouncing Enoch Powell, so many people were against the Syrian strikes. Whereas military action usually shores up an American president (aside from GWB, Clinton certainly used military action to present a stronger image of himself), for a British Prime Minister in recent years it has been a disaster. It is demonstrative of a huge lack of trust in our leaders. 
    Yes, interesting it is, made more so by the unilateral action we are now consistently witnessing with the 'Allies'..by now it seems the UNSC is little more than a minor adjunct to Western exceptionalism
    You complain about the MSM. Why do you not apply the same critique to the conspiracy news sites? They're just as much about shaping public opinion to fall in line with a pre-approved narrative. In the case of Globalresearch as you linked to earlier, the whiff of Jew blaming is massive on that site. 


    "complain about the MSM." - No complaining here. Merely observing facts as I see them. Last I checked much as you are...

    "
    Why do you not apply the same critique to the conspiracy news sites? They're just as much about shaping public opinion to fall in line with a pre-approved narrative. In the case of Globalresearch as you linked to earlier, the whiff of Jew blaming is massive on that site."

    The same critique might equally be levelled at "the conspiracy news sites" as you describe them, I haven't suggested otherwise. In fact quite the opposite point was made in my comment above  : "The date of the AP article was the significance, as to the rest, you could do worse than believe no-one"

    However, I would suggest it not controversial to observe that whoever spends their time viewing "the conspiracy news sites" accounts for the relatively tiny minority of the population, as opposed to the MSM which is quite the opposite in this sense.

    As for Globalresearch, my apologies if there was some inappropriate aspect in the referencing, I am not familiar with them, I simply did the usual google for news items on this particular topic and listed a number of the top results..

    Again - 
    The date of the AP article was the significance, as to the rest, you could do worse than believe no-one

    "Truth is treason in the empire of lies” G.Orwell

    Feedback link -  http://www.thefretboard.co.uk/discussion/133389/marshall#latest

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • HeartfeltdawnHeartfeltdawn Frets: 11052
    The point is that you've offered no critique of anything other than news sources which don't match your opinion. And please,

    Folk who use the MSM tag generally are complaining about it, and the overwhelming majority tend to fall into the same belief system you do. It happens on this site like all the rest. 

    Marshall said:

    As for Globalresearch, my apologies if there was some inappropriate aspect in the referencing, I am not familiar with them, I simply did the usual google for news items on this particular topic and listed a number of the top results..

    Putting up supporting evidence without checking or reviewing it is a bit risky in my book. 
    I make Jeremy Paxman look like Fingermouse. 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • MarshallMarshall Frets: 141
    The point is that you've offered no critique of anything other than news sources which don't match your opinion. And please,

    Folk who use the MSM tag generally are complaining about it, and the overwhelming majority tend to fall into the same belief system you do. It happens on this site like all the rest. 

    Marshall said:

    As for Globalresearch, my apologies if there was some inappropriate aspect in the referencing, I am not familiar with them, I simply did the usual google for news items on this particular topic and listed a number of the top results..

    Putting up supporting evidence without checking or reviewing it is a bit risky in my book. 
    Apparently no amount of repeating the point will suffice, however I will attempt once again:

    1. The point was NOT to "offer critique of anything".

    2. I didn't express an opinion in connection with the AP story beyond observing that apparently the story had not been covered in the UK

    3. "Folk who use the MSM tag.." Perhaps wherever it is that you spend your time, but this is transparently not so universally online. Abbreviations are the order of the day online

    4. ".the overwhelming majority tend to fall into the same belief system you do."  Oh really, and what "belief system" is that?

    5. "Putting up supporting evidence.."  Once again, the links listed were not "supporting evidence" - they were ALL the same story, repeated across a random (top listed results by Google) cross section of websites, the only common theme being the story and the DATE OF THE STORY as listed on all the links! 

    It's not a "conspiracy theory" and it's not "a belief system" Heartfeltdawn - it was a news article reported March 13 by AP and repeated across the net by various random sites. 

    It happened to forewarn of more or less exactly what transpired 3 weeks later - THAT is the significance and nothing more.!


    "Truth is treason in the empire of lies” G.Orwell

    Feedback link -  http://www.thefretboard.co.uk/discussion/133389/marshall#latest

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • HeartfeltdawnHeartfeltdawn Frets: 11052
    edited April 15
    Marshall said:
    Apparently no amount of repeating the point will suffice, however I will attempt once again:

    1. The point was NOT to "offer critique of anything".

    2. I didn't express an opinion in connection with the AP story beyond observing that apparently the story had not been covered in the UK

    3. "Folk who use the MSM tag.." Perhaps wherever it is that you spend your time, but this is transparently not so universally online. Abbreviations are the order of the day online

    4. ".the overwhelming majority tend to fall into the same belief system you do."  Oh really, and what "belief system" is that?

    5. "Putting up supporting evidence.."  Once again, the links listed were not "supporting evidence" - they were ALL the same story, repeated across a random (top listed results by Google) cross section of websites, the only common theme being the story and the DATE OF THE STORY as listed on all the links! 

    It's not a "conspiracy theory" and it's not "a belief system" Heartfeltdawn - it was a news article reported March 13 by AP and repeated across the net by various random sites. 

    It happened to forewarn of more or less exactly what transpired 3 weeks later - THAT is the significance and nothing more.!



    You can repeat the point as much as you like. It's still evidence-light no matter how much you repeat it. 


    1. So if you offer no critique, it's simply pulling out links to back up your opinion. 

    2. The story was covered in the UK as Reuters are located in the UK. 

    3. When it comes to these debates, yes it does. You follow the path of many folk with views of this ilk in that you talk of how blind everyone else is, how everyone else lacks critical thinking etc etc etc. You aren't privy to any special or classified info. It's all down to personal evaluation of news and evidence, small though it is. You choose one side, I choose no sides. 

    4. A belief system based on MSM being biased with task masters from higher up calling the shorts. 

    5. What you take as staggeringly accurate forewarning comes over to me as geographically specific warnings with fuck all evidence backing up those warnings. 

    Neither side has come out with smoking gun evidence to support their case. Until they do, Russia's case is no stronger than that of the US-, UK etc. 


    I make Jeremy Paxman look like Fingermouse. 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • ClarkyClarky Frets: 2881
    what's to say that the Russians knew Assad was going to do this well in advance and released a statement that the militants were planning this attack to blame Assad as a cover..
    this will make all the dates of the prediction line up..
    then you end up with the situation you have now
    blame and counter blame with the sole aim that no one knows what actually went on, the waters are about as muddled as is possible and further division and confusion is sewn..

    seriously...
    if they knew this was going to happen.. that Syria would be blamed and the potential outcome would be some sort of military action from the West... why allow it to happen at all..
    why would Russian and Syria not intervene and stop the chemical attack..??
    thereby preventing the US, UK, French strikes from happening at all and removing the risk of a potential major confrontation between Russia and the west
    and also a preventative / life saving act like this by Russia and Syria would show them in a very good light in the eyes of the world...
    and if they knew this was going to happen and were struggling to locate the source and prevent it, why not recruit the help of the US, the UK and France so that we can all pile in together to ensure it never happens with the UN's blessing..
    then absolutely everyone looks good.. including Russia and Syria..

    I'm thinking that Russia is looking worse than ever because either:
    - blaming the militants before hand was a pre planned / pre advertised cover for Syria
    - the militants actually did it and Russia / Syria stood back and let it happen for the sole reason of causing yet further confusion and mistrust.. then after and investigation they can say "see... wasn't us at all".. sewing yet more mistrust from folks like us in our own govts.. essentially a political / propaganda trap..

    either way... it's really fkn devious
    play every note as if it were your first
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • HeartfeltdawnHeartfeltdawn Frets: 11052
    Clarky said:
    what's to say that the Russians knew Assad was going to do this well in advance and released a statement that the militants were planning this attack to blame Assad as a cover..
    this will make all the dates of the prediction line up..
    then you end up with the situation you have now
    blame and counter blame with the sole aim that no one knows what actually went on, the waters are about as muddled as is possible and further division and confusion is sewn..

    seriously...
    if they knew this was going to happen.. that Syria would be blamed and the potential outcome would be some sort of military action from the West... why allow it to happen at all..
    why would Russian and Syria not intervene and stop the chemical attack..??
    thereby preventing the US, UK, French strikes from happening at all and removing the risk of a potential major confrontation between Russia and the west
    and also a preventative / life saving act like this by Russia and Syria would show them in a very good light in the eyes of the world...
    and if they knew this was going to happen and were struggling to locate the source and prevent it, why not recruit the help of the US, the UK and France so that we can all pile in together to ensure it never happens with the UN's blessing..
    then absolutely everyone looks good.. including Russia and Syria..

    I'm thinking that Russia is looking worse than ever because either:
    - blaming the militants before hand was a pre planned / pre advertised cover for Syria
    - the militants actually did it and Russia / Syria stood back and let it happen for the sole reason of causing yet further confusion and mistrust.. then after and investigation they can say "see... wasn't us at all".. sewing yet more mistrust from folks like us in our own govts.. essentially a political / propaganda trap..

    either way... it's really fkn devious


    This is why taking sides either way is bonkers when so little has been given out. 

    I make Jeremy Paxman look like Fingermouse. 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • MarshallMarshall Frets: 141
    Marshall said:
    Apparently no amount of repeating the point will suffice, however I will attempt once again:

    1. The point was NOT to "offer critique of anything".

    2. I didn't express an opinion in connection with the AP story beyond observing that apparently the story had not been covered in the UK

    3. "Folk who use the MSM tag.." Perhaps wherever it is that you spend your time, but this is transparently not so universally online. Abbreviations are the order of the day online

    4. ".the overwhelming majority tend to fall into the same belief system you do."  Oh really, and what "belief system" is that?

    5. "Putting up supporting evidence.."  Once again, the links listed were not "supporting evidence" - they were ALL the same story, repeated across a random (top listed results by Google) cross section of websites, the only common theme being the story and the DATE OF THE STORY as listed on all the links! 

    It's not a "conspiracy theory" and it's not "a belief system" Heartfeltdawn - it was a news article reported March 13 by AP and repeated across the net by various random sites. 

    It happened to forewarn of more or less exactly what transpired 3 weeks later - THAT is the significance and nothing more.!



    You can repeat the point as much as you like. It's still evidence-light no matter how much you repeat it. 


    1. So if you offer no critique, it's simply pulling out links to back up your opinion. 

    2. The story was covered in the UK as Reuters are located in the UK. 

    3. When it comes to these debates, yes it does. You follow the path of many folk with views of this ilk in that you talk of how blind everyone else is, how everyone else lacks critical thinking etc etc etc. You aren't privy to any special or classified info. It's all down to personal evaluation of news and evidence, small though it is. You choose one side, I choose no sides. 

    4. A belief system based on MSM being biased with task masters from higher up calling the shorts. 

    5. What you take as staggeringly accurate forewarning comes over to me as geographically specific warnings with fuck all evidence backing up those warnings. 

    Neither side has come out with smoking gun evidence to support their case. Until they do, Russia's case is no stronger than that of the US-, UK etc. 


    1. I expressed no opinion and no critique - the significance of the article and it's timing is self explanatory - Repeated ad nauseam

    2. The timing of the article is the significance - by this point the wilful intention to avoid that point and take issue with the person who posted it speaks for itself - Noted

    3. Misquoting and misattributing statements and beliefs - Fully noted. Unilaterally Defining 'Rules' of grammatical and vocabular use in an open public forum debating politics and economics to discredit other opinions made - standard observable modus operandi. "Sides"?! What "side" did I "choose" Heartfeltdawn? Becoming puerile. 

    4. This is not a belief system, nor is it controversial to anyone with an iota of grey matter worth speaking about - political observation and commentary does not = "Belief System" 

    5. More 'words in the mouth' Heartfeltdawn.. evidently the significance of the timing of events eludes you and no amount of further discussion will address the matter..

      

    "Truth is treason in the empire of lies” G.Orwell

    Feedback link -  http://www.thefretboard.co.uk/discussion/133389/marshall#latest

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • MarshallMarshall Frets: 141
    edited April 15
    Clarky said:
    what's to say that the Russians knew Assad was going to do this well in advance and released a statement that the militants were planning this attack to blame Assad as a cover..
    this will make all the dates of the prediction line up..
    then you end up with the situation you have now
    blame and counter blame with the sole aim that no one knows what actually went on, the waters are about as muddled as is possible and further division and confusion is sewn..

    seriously...
    if they knew this was going to happen.. that Syria would be blamed and the potential outcome would be some sort of military action from the West... why allow it to happen at all..
    why would Russian and Syria not intervene and stop the chemical attack..??
    thereby preventing the US, UK, French strikes from happening at all and removing the risk of a potential major confrontation between Russia and the west
    and also a preventative / life saving act like this by Russia and Syria would show them in a very good light in the eyes of the world...
    and if they knew this was going to happen and were struggling to locate the source and prevent it, why not recruit the help of the US, the UK and France so that we can all pile in together to ensure it never happens with the UN's blessing..
    then absolutely everyone looks good.. including Russia and Syria..

    I'm thinking that Russia is looking worse than ever because either:
    - blaming the militants before hand was a pre planned / pre advertised cover for Syria
    - the militants actually did it and Russia / Syria stood back and let it happen for the sole reason of causing yet further confusion and mistrust.. then after and investigation they can say "see... wasn't us at all".. sewing yet more mistrust from folks like us in our own govts.. essentially a political / propaganda trap..

    either way... it's really fkn devious
    Someone who actually wants to debate the subject rather than attack other fretboard members for having an opinion..nice

    "seriously...
    if they knew this was going to happen....why allow it to happen at all..?"

    Good and timely points well made Clarky...to me, these are some of the questions that actually begin to get to the real crux of the affair.

    Why Indeed?

    "Truth is treason in the empire of lies” G.Orwell

    Feedback link -  http://www.thefretboard.co.uk/discussion/133389/marshall#latest

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • ClarkyClarky Frets: 2881
    Clarky said:
    what's to say that the Russians knew Assad was going to do this well in advance and released a statement that the militants were planning this attack to blame Assad as a cover..
    this will make all the dates of the prediction line up..
    then you end up with the situation you have now
    blame and counter blame with the sole aim that no one knows what actually went on, the waters are about as muddled as is possible and further division and confusion is sewn..

    seriously...
    if they knew this was going to happen.. that Syria would be blamed and the potential outcome would be some sort of military action from the West... why allow it to happen at all..
    why would Russian and Syria not intervene and stop the chemical attack..??
    thereby preventing the US, UK, French strikes from happening at all and removing the risk of a potential major confrontation between Russia and the west
    and also a preventative / life saving act like this by Russia and Syria would show them in a very good light in the eyes of the world...
    and if they knew this was going to happen and were struggling to locate the source and prevent it, why not recruit the help of the US, the UK and France so that we can all pile in together to ensure it never happens with the UN's blessing..
    then absolutely everyone looks good.. including Russia and Syria..

    I'm thinking that Russia is looking worse than ever because either:
    - blaming the militants before hand was a pre planned / pre advertised cover for Syria
    - the militants actually did it and Russia / Syria stood back and let it happen for the sole reason of causing yet further confusion and mistrust.. then after and investigation they can say "see... wasn't us at all".. sewing yet more mistrust from folks like us in our own govts.. essentially a political / propaganda trap..

    either way... it's really fkn devious


    This is why taking sides either way is bonkers when so little has been given out. 

    I'm just trying to think this through..
    what makes sense and what does not
    thing is... most of the information out there makes little sense..
    a lot of it it plausible until you think it through..
    then it stops making sense.. and I think it's deliberately so..

    one thing I've not fully understood...
    why does Russia care so much about Assad at all [apart from their naval base being in Syria]?
    play every note as if it were your first
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • HeartfeltdawnHeartfeltdawn Frets: 11052
    Marshall said:
    1. I expressed no opinion and no critique - the significance of the article and it's timing is self explanatory - Repeated ad nauseam

    2. The timing of the article is the significance - by this point the wilful intention to avoid that point and take issue with the person who posted it speaks for itself - Noted

    3. Misquoting and misattributing statements and beliefs - Fully noted. Unilaterally Defining 'Rules' of grammatical and vocabular use in an open public forum debating politics and economics to discredit other opinions made - standard observable modus operandi. "Sides"?! What "side" did I "choose" Heartfeltdawn? Becoming puerile. 

    4. This is not a belief system, nor is it controversial to anyone with an iota of grey matter worth speaking about - political observation and commentary does not = "Belief System" 

    5. More 'words in the mouth' Heartfeltdawn.. evidently the significance of the timing of events eludes you and no amount of further discussion will address the matter..

      
    1. So you post stuff up with no opinion connected to it, no critique, and deem that the article is self-explanatory. When you do that, it steers an observer to conclude that you take the general's words to be truthful based on an attack happening. 

    2. The timing of the article is significant for you. For me, it has significance but it requires more evidence to support it. 

    3. Claiming I've misquoted you but not actually bothering to point out what I've actually misquoted will only amuse me. Furthermore, this is not an open public forum by virtue of requiring a username and password before you can access it. 

    4. Political observation and commentary can make a belief system.

    5. It doesn't elude me. I simply don't believe that the timing of the general's words is conclusive proof that the Russians are correct. 

    So I suggest we simply both shut the fuck up. 

    I make Jeremy Paxman look like Fingermouse. 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • HeartfeltdawnHeartfeltdawn Frets: 11052
    Clarky said:


    one thing I've not fully understood...
    why does Russia care so much about Assad at all [apart from their naval base being in Syria]?
    Arms deals is one reason. 

    https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/04/syria-war-showroom-russian-arms-sales-160406135130398.html

    War is good for defense companies and the military. The best way to justify increases in military spending at times of societal tightness of cash is when there is conflict to be involved with. Trump's first term will see an enormous boom in military spending with a huge deficit increase: in this country, military spending is always an issue and our defense industry is important to our economy. 
    I make Jeremy Paxman look like Fingermouse. 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • FretwiredFretwired Frets: 16299
    edited April 15
    Marshall said:


    1. I expressed no opinion and no critique - the significance of the article and it's timing is self explanatory - Repeated ad nauseam

    2. The timing of the article is the significance - by this point the wilful intention to avoid that point and take issue with the person who posted it speaks for itself - Noted

    3. Misquoting and misattributing statements and beliefs - Fully noted. Unilaterally Defining 'Rules' of grammatical and vocabular use in an open public forum debating politics and economics to discredit other opinions made - standard observable modus operandi. "Sides"?! What "side" did I "choose" Heartfeltdawn? Becoming puerile. 

    4. This is not a belief system, nor is it controversial to anyone with an iota of grey matter worth speaking about - political observation and commentary does not = "Belief System" 

    5. More 'words in the mouth' Heartfeltdawn.. evidently the significance of the timing of events eludes you and no amount of further discussion will address the matter..

      

    So look at the facts:

    Was there a chemical attack?
    Sifting through the data the answer is yes. What evidence? Feedback from multiple sources. Civil defence personnel, doctors at the local hospital experienced with dealing with the symptoms of such an attack and descriptions of people frothing at the mouth from the victims. Again consistent with such an attack.

    The Russians have not denied that there was an attack. They have blamed the British and rebels so they think such an attack took place.

    Verdict: there was a chemical weapons attack.

    Who is to blame?
    The last British chemical weapons attack was actually on Russian Bolsheviks in 1919 on the orders of Winston Churchill. It was a total failure and the remainder of the weapons were destroyed. Britain has abided by the international ban on chemical weapons use. There is no evidence of Britain carrying out chemical weapons attacks since so the Russian claims that we did it or conspired with others to do it is rubbish.

    It was the rebels. Unlikely. There are many eye witnesses from all sides who said they saw a barrel bomb dropped by a helicopter which was followed by a large cloud of gas. The rebels don't have any helicopters.

    Is there anyone with a track record in using chemical weapons? Yes - the Russians. They used them in Afghanistan in the 1980s and they have used them in Syria with Syrian forces. The allies attacked Syria in 2013 after a chemical attack. So the Russians and Syrians have a track record of using chemical weapons. The Syrians are known to have stocks and have access to helicopters.

    Russia has also blocked investigators from looking into the attack at the UN. If it wasn't them they'd have nothing to hide. The Russian states online media campaign is easy to spot and lacks credibility for all but the most gullible.

    The French state they have incontrovertible evidence that the Syrians/Russians carried out the attack.

    Syria and Russia have a motive - they are fighting a war. The British, US and France do not have a motive. They are not after regime change.

    Verdict: in all probability the attack was carried out by Syrian forces.

    Did the attack breach international law?
    This is a grey area but it is unlikely that it did. There has never been any need for a Security Council resolution approving action to stop, punish or deter a crime against humanity. Before the UN or League of Nations were established there were well-recognised situations where action was taken against piracy, against slavery.

    More recently, we have action taken via Nato to stop ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. That did not require a UN resolution, which Russia would have blocked. However, any force used must be proportionate; The world cannot ban chemical weapons and then sit idly by by while a state uses them to kill civilians.

    Verdict: the attack is unlikely to breach international law

    The allies are warmongers?
    The US/UK/France have stated they are not after regime change. There are no troops on the ground so an air war would be a pointless exercise. The attacks were limited to three sites engaged in the storage and manufacture of chemical weapons. Notice was given so that when the attacks took place the facilities were destroyed and no civilians were killed.

    The Russians and Iran's weren't targeted and nor was Assad's military. They will continue to fight and it looks like win their war. There will not be any further attacks by the allies.

    Verdict: the attacks were proportionate.


    The rest is froth.



    My pump-action drivel gun is smoking hot today!
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 2reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • MarshallMarshall Frets: 141
    Marshall said:
    1. I expressed no opinion and no critique - the significance of the article and it's timing is self explanatory - Repeated ad nauseam

    2. The timing of the article is the significance - by this point the wilful intention to avoid that point and take issue with the person who posted it speaks for itself - Noted

    3. Misquoting and misattributing statements and beliefs - Fully noted. Unilaterally Defining 'Rules' of grammatical and vocabular use in an open public forum debating politics and economics to discredit other opinions made - standard observable modus operandi. "Sides"?! What "side" did I "choose" Heartfeltdawn? Becoming puerile. 

    4. This is not a belief system, nor is it controversial to anyone with an iota of grey matter worth speaking about - political observation and commentary does not = "Belief System" 

    5. More 'words in the mouth' Heartfeltdawn.. evidently the significance of the timing of events eludes you and no amount of further discussion will address the matter..

      
    1. So you post stuff up with no opinion connected to it, no critique, and deem that the article is self-explanatory. When you do that, it steers an observer to conclude that you take the general's words to be truthful based on an attack happening. 

    2. The timing of the article is significant for you. For me, it has significance but it requires more evidence to support it. 

    3. Claiming I've misquoted you but not actually bothering to point out what I've actually misquoted will only amuse me. Furthermore, this is not an open public forum by virtue of requiring a username and password before you can access it. 

    4. Political observation and commentary can make a belief system.

    5. It doesn't elude me. I simply don't believe that the timing of the general's words is conclusive proof that the Russians are correct. 

    So I suggest we simply both shut the fuck up. 

    1. To you in this case evidently, but there is absolutely no definitive reason to assume such to anyone taking the OP at face value...that is unless you have an ulterior agenda of course. One would hope at this stage after I don't know how many attempts to explain the point of the post that you now understand that not to be the case.

    2. Evidence that the statement was made or evidence that the Russian was referring to? The timing of the article is significant - period!

    3. The record is there for anyone who cares (not many I suspect) to inspect it...you've already repeatedly demonstrated your preference for falsely attributing "beliefs" and/or intentions not expressed nor inferred by me, and taking practically everything I've posted as entirely reasonable political comment to task. If you disagree, fine, express your opinion, explain why it differs to mine, the debate proceeds. Drag the debate down to attack on a personal level of other people's views and well, we know where that leads as amply demonstrated by your 'chums' 'good cop and bad cop'. "This is not a public forum.." this is a public forum by virtue of the fact that anybody can access it after creating the necessary login details, and splitting hairs on this level is just plain puerile and doesn't help your case

    4. Wrong way round

    5. The nature of your comment here conspicuously exhibits that you 'still don't get it', or simply don't want to..either way I'm past caring

    "So I suggest we simply both shut the fuck up."  Genuine LOL - we finally agree on something!

    "Truth is treason in the empire of lies” G.Orwell

    Feedback link -  http://www.thefretboard.co.uk/discussion/133389/marshall#latest

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • DarnWeightDarnWeight Frets: 834
    Clarky said:

    I'm just trying to think this through..
    what makes sense and what does not
    thing is... most of the information out there makes little sense..
    a lot of it it plausible until you think it through..
    then it stops making sense.. and I think it's deliberately so..

    Not looking to get involved in the current bun fight, just here to flag up this book review I spotted in the Guardian earlier today...

    The Road To Unfreedom: Russia, Europe, America by Timothy Snyder

    Looks like a good read for those looking to get a take on the current downward trajectory of global political discourse, and get a background in the origins of fake news.  Touches on Putin, Brexit, Trump and all that good shiz.  Snyder's written some good thoughtful stuff from a more historical perspective, so this should be good.
    New fangled trading feedback link right here!
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • HeartfeltdawnHeartfeltdawn Frets: 11052
    Marshall said:

    3. The record is there for anyone who cares (not many I suspect) to inspect it...you've already repeatedly demonstrated your preference for falsely attributing "beliefs" and/or intentions not expressed nor inferred by me, and taking practically everything I've posted as entirely reasonable political comment to task. If you disagree, fine, express your opinion, explain why it differs to mine, the debate proceeds. Drag the debate down to attack on a personal level of other people's views and well, we know where that leads as amply demonstrated by your 'chums' 'good cop and bad cop'. "This is not a public forum.." this is a public forum by virtue of the fact that anybody can access it after creating the necessary login details, and splitting hairs on this level is just plain puerile and doesn't help your case



    Again you go with "we" rather than "you" and decide that you're the victim of some gang mentality against you. It's peculiar that the people who have accused me of this on this forum all do it in the same way. 
    I make Jeremy Paxman look like Fingermouse. 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
Sign In or Register to comment.