BS: Syria: the new nightmare?

Subject: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 04 Dec 12 - 04:21 PM

The Syrian Foreign Ministry has been told by the US, France, UK and NATO that the use of chemical weapons on its people would result in severe consequences, diplomatic speak for "you will be bombed to shit and invaded".

"The Foreign Ministry in Damascus said it would never use such weapons against Syrians."

So my question is, why is Sarin gas being prepared for use in Syria?

I guess my other question is, "Has the world gone nuts?"

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Dec 12 - 04:33 PM

It kind of seems that way.

How do we know that anything we're being told by our mass media is true anyway? I remember when they were telling us that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Why? So we would agree to an illegal invasion of Iraq.

If an invasion of Syria is in the works, they'll tell us anything that appears to justify it...and they won't tell us about anything that would argue the other way.

Not saying the reports about Sarin gas aren't true...I'm just saying they may or may not be true, and we have no way of knowing for sure about that.

The situation just keeps getting more and more dangerous. What worries me the most is that it may reach a point where Russia decides to intervene in the Middle East in order to protect their own interests there...and that could mean a 3rd World War.

If that happens, Bruce, we will probably both check out of this existence a little sooner than we'd figured on doing.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 04 Dec 12 - 04:49 PM

Well, I tend not to believe much of what's in the media, but I doubt NATO would be lied to by US intelligence services because the game is never played that way. I am of the opinion that Iraq had the weapons but did move them to Syria before the 'Coalition of the Willing' invaded Hussein's country. That aside, because I have no way to prove the contention, the remark that worries me most is '"The Foreign Ministry in Damascus said it would never use such weapons against Syrians."'

Also, war in Syria would be a very hard sell in the USA. Canada has asked both Russia and China to exert whatever influence they have with Syria to ensure chemical weapons are not used. In the parlance, it's one damned thing after another.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 Dec 12 - 04:53 PM

I am of the opinion that Iraq had the weapons but did move them to Syria before the 'Coalition of the Willing' invaded Hussein's country.

That is what was observed, and I reported here, and I was scoffed at. Be careful, bruce- you may get the "bb" treatment if you go against the "Proper" viewpoint.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: bobad
Date: 04 Dec 12 - 04:55 PM

From Al Jazeera

The Syrian foreign ministry has repeatedly denied that it would consider using chemical weapons against Syrians, though it has not ruled out their use in case of foreign military intervention.

Foreign military analysts say that Syria has the capability to produce chemical agents such as mustard gas and sarin, and that it could also produce VX nerve gas.

Mark Fitzpatrick, an expert on chemical weapons at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, told Al Jazeera that it was unclear if Syria was actually preparing to use such weapons, but that precautions had to be taken.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: gnu
Date: 04 Dec 12 - 05:02 PM

9... "I am of the opinion that Iraq had the weapons but did move them to Syria before the 'Coalition of the Willing' invaded Hussein's country."

I have been saying that since I saw Blair and Quackdaffy shaking hands and smiling. I thoght it was obvious the wepons went to Syria and a good portion of them went to Egypt and Libya as well. It was obvious to me what happened and I posted often about it. And I was shit upon. Welcome!

Ya see what happened in Egypt just now? Calling it "The Second Revolution"? Buy a tank of gas... or two. Them cruise missiles ain't a dime a dozen. And the new planes are ready. The Nighthawk is a pussy now.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: gnu
Date: 04 Dec 12 - 05:04 PM

Crossposted there. Same thrust.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: bobad
Date: 04 Dec 12 - 06:47 PM

More than 40,000 killed in Syria, 158 killed in Gaza.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: bobad
Date: 04 Dec 12 - 07:17 PM

"Bashar al-Assad has lost all hope of victory or escape according to Russian diplomats who met with the Syrian president two weeks ago.

Government forces have launched a counteroffensive to stem rebel gains around the capital as the opposition lays siege to the Damascus International Airport and closes in on Assad.

"[Assad's] mood is that he will be killed anyway," Russian political analyst Fyodor Lukyanov told The New York Times.

"If he will try to go, to leave, to exit, he will be killed by his own people [the minority Alawite sect]," Mr. Lukyanov added. "If he stays, he will be killed by his opponents. He is in a trap. It is not about Russia or anybody else. It is about his physical survival."

More

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 04 Dec 12 - 07:43 PM

Those who hoped for a Syrian spring and got one had no idea what they were wishing for. All they could see, as with Iraq, was a Bad Guy who needed to be toppled. They might have paused to consider that governance in some of those countries created in haste, in the aftermath of WW1 and the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, is close to impossible. That is true of Syria in particular, where coups were staged almost on a weekly basis until the present Assad's dad got a grip.

And hard as it is for us to grasp, democracy might not be the answer. Jordan was gifted to the Saudi Hashemites after WW2 and that dynasty has ruled ever since. By western standards that's crazy, yet Jordan remains an oasis of stability in the world's most turbulent region. Face it, what works and what doesn't is a matter of chance. Ideology doesn't come into it.

I guess nothing will stop the west lecturing about chemical weapons, human rights, etc, but surely it has no right to interfere. Chemical weapons may be out of fashion now, but the US was happy to target Vietnamese civilians with napalm. The UK bemoaned ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia, but virtually caused it - and on a many times greater scale - in the partitioning of the Indian sub-continent. And what gives the US, UK, France and Israel the right to deny Iran nuclear weapons? Sometimes hypocrisy in the west just beggars belief.

Tonight a US senator (Democrat) on BBC TV defended the renditioning of illegal combatants to be tortured, provided only that laws can be recodified to make the processes transparent. Tomorrow the same guy will probably be complaining about human rights in Syria.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Dec 12 - 07:49 PM

Guys, the kind of "weapons of mass destruction" that were being strongly implied to the public in 2003 in both the USA and the UK in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq were not little stuff like nerve gas or chemical weapons. The threat that was being implied very strongly by both Blair and Bush was that Saddam had nuclear weapons and delivery systems for them...either already extant...or on the way very shortly. I think it's quite clear that that was not true. It was a fabricated scare tactic, and it was used to panic people into supporting the invasion. Saddam posed no real existential threat to the West or to Israel at that time. His military had been very seriously degraded since the earlier Gulf War, and even in that war he had proved capable of nothing more than throwing some inaccurate, conventionally-armed Scud missiles at Israel.

As for Assad, he is doing exactly what the leader of any nation would do if placed in the same desperate situation. He's fighting for his and his government's survival against both local rebels and a foreign-backed and supplied insurgency that is getting much help in both materiel and manpower from outside Syria. Many of the fighters who were used to topple Qaddafi have been sent into Syria.

This doesn't Assad a "nice guy", and I'm not saying he is a nice guy, necessarily...but what he is doing is simply normal survival tactics for any government put in the same circumstances. He'll fight until he wins or until he goes down. If Netanyahu or the UK's Cameron or Egypt's Mursi or Barack Obama or Vladimir Putin or any other leader were in the same desperate position, fighting for their very survival, they'd do the same thing, and they'd all use ANY weapons they had at their disposal...if it seemed necessary in order to survive.

That's reality. You can demonize Assad all you want for fighting for the survival of himself and his administration, but anyone else in his position would do the very same thing.

And when...and if...he's gone, you won't see one iota of improvement in Syria. It will get worse. Assad's independent secular government will be replaced by an Islamic government, in all probability, a government that is under the thumb of the western alliance, and Syrians will be worse off than they were before, pretty much like what has happened in Lybia.

But the USA will have eliminated one more independent secular regional power, and will have cleared the way to an eventual attack on the main final objective: Iran, and the Israelis will be absolutely delighted.

As for the Russians, they will be getting ready for Armageddon. This is some serious shit here, and it's NOT about establishing democracy or ending dictatorships in foreign lands. It's a long term and major war with global objectives. The eventual and inevitable opponents in that war, I think, are going to be Russia and China...versus the western alliance. Assad's Syria is just one more pawn, bishop, or knight on the big chessboard...same as Israel.

The trouble is, though, you can win a chessgame without killing both players. I don't think this game can be concluded without mutually ruining just about everybody.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: bobad
Date: 04 Dec 12 - 07:49 PM

"And what gives the US, UK, France and Israel the right to deny Iran nuclear weapons?"

Doh

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Dec 12 - 08:16 PM

There are 3 notable non-signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Pact. India, Pakistan, and Israel. They dodged the issue by never signing on at all. They all have nukes now. Israel has a really large number of nukes, but has never officially admitted to it, yet everyone knows they have those weapons.

North Korea acceded to the NNPP, but later violated the terms by building and testing at least 2 nukes. THEY are in violation of the Pact, Iran isn't.

This puts Israel, as usual, in a totally unique situation in the world. The world rules that apply to everyone else apparently do not apply to Israel. They have not been penalized or criticized for building many nukes outside of the NNPP. They have not been sanctioned for doing it. No one else is in such a position. They are given carte blanche to do what no one else can do...without being ostracized for it.

Strange, isn't it?

In any case, Iran has NOT been denied the right to generate hydroelectric power with nuclear power plants. They have that legal right, they started on it when the Shah was still in power, and they have said all along that that is all they are doing. Iran does not object to being denied the right to build nuclear weapons, because they have never asked for such a right. They have asked to be left alone to use their nuclear power to generate electricity. They are NOT in violation of the NNPP.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 04 Dec 12 - 08:23 PM

North Korea is no longer in the NNPP. They withdrew about a decade ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: pdq
Date: 04 Dec 12 - 08:49 PM

"...In any case, Iran has NOT been denied the right to generate hydroelectric power with nuclear power plants." ~ Little Hawk

I find that line pretty dam funny.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Dec 12 - 12:24 PM

"This puts Israel, as usual, in a totally unique situation in the world. The world rules that apply to everyone else apparently do not apply to Israel. They have not been penalized or criticized for building many nukes outside of the NNPP. They have not been sanctioned for doing it. No one else is in such a position. They are given carte blanche to do what no one else can do...without being ostracized for it.

Strange, isn't it?
"


LH, you are ignorant of the facts.

Israel has NOT signed the treaty, therefore is not bound by it- UNLIKE IRAQ

IF Israel HAD signed the treaty, they would have been one of the Nuclear powers like the US and USSR- They had developed their weapons BEFORE the treaty was even proposed. That alone puts them in a different class than Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Dec 12 - 12:27 PM

"the NPT non-nuclear-weapon states agree never to acquire nuclear weapons and the NPT nuclear-weapon states in exchange agree to share the benefits of peaceful nuclear technology "

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Dec 12 - 12:42 PM

What Peter said.........we have lost the plot regarding foreign policy. We now have govt by mass media...the xfactor generation....god help us!

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 05 Dec 12 - 06:00 PM

Let me rephrase, on the off-chance that even a smart-ass like bobad might understand the hypocrisy. What gives signatory countries that ignore the NPT and another that has never signed it the right to lecture Iran on its NPT obligations?

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: bobad
Date: 05 Dec 12 - 06:09 PM

Iran is a self proclaimed existential threat to Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 05 Dec 12 - 07:10 PM

Not until it has an effective nuclear capability. Which for the sake of stability in the region I hope will be soon. ((A neat change of ground though. bobad.)

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: bobad
Date: 05 Dec 12 - 07:15 PM

It will never have a nuclear capability, or at least not for long.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: michaelr
Date: 05 Dec 12 - 10:43 PM

I thought this thread was about Syria?

Yahoo news headline tonight: Syria has loaded chemical weapons into bombs, awaits final order from Assad.

Fuck.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 06 Dec 12 - 12:55 AM

All the obfuscatory stuff aside, there is a major problem with regard to the use of chemical weapons. Countries that don't have chemical weapons but do have nuclear weapons will respond to a WMD attack with their own WMD attack. The political posturing is impressive, but too many people here are missing that point. This is not some he said/she said scenario. It is a clear and present danger. The usuals have brought Israel into the argument when in fact it has nothing to do with Israel. It has everything to do with an Iran/Syria agreement dating back to 2006. Assad and his military will face consequences for their actions if they use the gas on their own people, something conveyed to Assad's government by many concerned countries and both NATO and the UN. There are two threads about to drop off the board wherein you can blame Israel for everything or anything that grinds your nuts; this isn't one of them.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 06 Dec 12 - 01:26 AM

Nuke the bastards.
=(:-( D)

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Dec 12 - 03:45 AM

Assad says not on Syrians, but he also claims the rebels are foreign, and he might think hitting Israel would gain him support.

I find it extraordinary that intelligent people look forward with hope to Iran becoming a nuclear power.
Not just Israel, but every Arab country has reason to fear it and arm themselves accordingly.
Happy days.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 06 Dec 12 - 04:09 AM

Should we eliminate all nuclear weapons from humanity?
I think so. They're only good for killing people.
That's immoral.
=(:-( 0)

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 06 Dec 12 - 06:55 AM

Atomic weapons, biological weapons, chemical weapons: none of them are good for humanity. Now we know our ABCs, won't you sing along with me!

####################

"Iran has confirmed for the first time that forces from its revolutionary guards corps (IRGC) are in Syria helping Bashar al-Assad's government crush rebels, and warned that it would get involved militarily if its Arab ally came under attack."

That was reported in mid September of this year by http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/16/iran-middleeast .

As the relative worth of Iran's rial drops, so too does its economic support of Syria's money. Taking three billion dollars a year as a low figure, and with Iran's oil going to China and Russia at bargain-basement prices, Iran will not be able to continue its fiscal support of Syria's pound at the present level, a level that has been dropping for months. If Assad does implement a "What the hell, I have nothing to lose so I'll start taking people with me" line, we could be watching the beginning of a chemical/nuclear war, and whether that particular genie could be put back in the bottle is anyone's guess.

Weapons (missiles) that Israeli intelligence assumed were headed to Sudan from Iran may not be destined for end-use by Gaza, but rather end-use by Syria. Patriot missiles are going to Turkey from other NATO partners and Syria decries that.

IMO, the lower right-hand corner in all this is a horribly complex balancing act with all too real consequences for millions of people. If you believe in a higher power, pray to it now. If you don't believe in a higher power, pray anyway, just in case you're wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 06 Dec 12 - 10:15 AM

; it has I'm not sure that 999's ranting hysteria is the path to peace and tranquility in this troubled world.

As Little Hawk said so cogently, Bashar's major crime has been to defend his regime; a regime that was harsh and brutal by western standards but one which did for some years continue the stability achieved by his father.

His father, it might be argued, was far more brutal. Indeed Hafez al-Assad was responsible for the region's biggest massacre in modern times, one that by most estimates comfortably eclipsed the one achieved by Saddam at Halabja. Yet it was Assad who forced through equal rights for women, in the face of fanatical Sunni opposition. He even overturned a decree barring women from the presidency, though the Muslim Brotherhood together with other Islamic factions eventually succeeded in rescinding that initiative.

The west never for a moment considered intervening on behalf of the many thousands of victims at Hama, any more than they did on behalf of the victims at Halabja. But of course many years later Halabja was eagerly cited, as a justification for the mission creep whereby regime change became a legitimate objective in the Iraq war.

In all likelihood, any military intervention in Syria would be as catastrophic as that in Iraq, which has resulted in a hundred times more deaths than those inflicted by Saddam.

I fear that western attitudes, whereby a corrupt tyrant like Mobutu is to be funded and cherished while the Saddams and Bashars are demonised - and which can lead ultimately to 999-type hysterics - are dictated by little more than what is fashionable at the time.

Keith, I expect I'm wasting my time, as in your simplistic mind no argument could ever have two sides, but nevertheless I suggest you try a little bit of reading:

Iran and the bomb: a fabricated threat

The Waltz article itself, under discussion at that link, cannot be reached without going through a pay wall, as far as I can see.(It's on a website I access through someone else's account.} That's a pity: it has caused a little stir in academia and even caught the attention of a few politicians.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: pdq
Date: 06 Dec 12 - 10:44 AM

"******'s major crime has been to defend his regime; a regime that was harsh and brutal by western standards but one which did for some years continue the stability achieved by his father."

Sounds like you're talking about the Shah of Iran.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: bobad
Date: 06 Dec 12 - 10:50 AM

The IAEA contradicts Waltz re. weaponization in Iran.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Dec 12 - 11:37 AM

Peter, thank you for that gratuitously insulting Keith, I expect I'm wasting my time, as in your simplistic mind no argument could ever have two sides, but nevertheless I suggest you try a little bit of reading:

Like all of us I do have a position on some issues, but it is the likes of Jim and Don who get so cross when an opposing view is presented.
I am quite aware of those arguments that Iran's bomb is nothing to worry about and they are not making one anyway.
I just do not happen to believe that.

Last time I discussed this on Mudcat, Jim Carroll was quite frenzied in demanding that NATO troops should intervene in Syria against Assad's forces.
Any change Jim?

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 06 Dec 12 - 11:44 AM

You can't arrest someone for what they might do.
=(:-( ))

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 06 Dec 12 - 01:04 PM

I am quite aware of those arguments that Iran's bomb is nothing to worry about and they are not making one anyway.

You must have finished up at the wrong link Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Dec 12 - 01:05 PM

You must have posted the wrong one Peter.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 06 Dec 12 - 01:15 PM

So, uh, Peter, your method to solve the problem would be what exactly?

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: bobad
Date: 06 Dec 12 - 04:17 PM

"As anonymous sources within the U.S. state department leak information Syria may be loading warheads with chemical weapons, sources in France have begun indicating that a Western strike against the Assad regime could begin very soon.

Although the chemical weapon agents had not yet been loaded into planes, the State Department source, quoted by NBC News, said that if they are "there's little the outside world can do to stop it."

French weekly Le Point is reporting that France is preparing a military response similar to that used against Libya. There is no ground assault or sustained air campaign planned, the magazine says, but several smaller raids that would target chemical weapon sites and take away President Bashar al-Assad's air superiority.

The timing of Syria's moves on their chemical weapons come as the situation is "accelerating" on the ground, with Assad's regime losing to the rebels."

More

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 06 Dec 12 - 08:27 PM

Sorry Keith, I did post the wrong one, or at least not the one I thought I'd posted, though reading it will have done you no harm.

Some contributor to an online debate included at that link goes some way to answering 999's question to me:

If I were a betting man, I'd wager this entire 'crisis' would disappear if the US and the other nations of the world demanded that Israel match Iran signature-for-signature on every nuclear control protocol and every inspection regime. Why hasn't this been done already? Why hasn't the issue of Israel's undeclared nuclear weapons been brought up each and every day in the UN and other international forums?

But my short answer to 999 is that I would have stayed out of Libya and Iraq and I would leave Syria for Putin to deal with, or not, as he thinks appropriate. I had no problem with Gadaffi, didn't like Saddam's indulgence of his mentally unhinged son Uday and don't care for what I've seen of the younger Assad. None of which gives me any entitlement to interfere, any more than I would advocate interfering with the obscene regime of (say) Lukashenko in Belarus.

We live in an unhappy world and have no magic wand to make it better.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: kendall
Date: 06 Dec 12 - 08:32 PM

What, and just mind our own business? Unheard of.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 06 Dec 12 - 08:43 PM

Thank you, Peter. However, I don't understand why Putin should be allowed to deal with Syria anymore than you understand why various other countries should not be allowed to deal with Syria. I suppose that's a sticking point.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Dec 12 - 08:50 PM

I'm with the Capt'n on this one...

We backed the Taliban against the Russians and look how that turned out...

What we have in the Middle East is a revolution... The folks who want a bigger say are like America's working poor... Educated, motivated, in tune with what's going down and not getting opportunities...

This is a global problem... Too many upper 1%ers glamming onto too much wealth... And too few folks with a lot to contribute workin' for nothin'...

Syria??? Egypt??? Libya??? The USA??? You pick...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 07 Dec 12 - 04:32 PM

999, Russia would not be contemplating military intervention. It just happens to be a friend Assad might listen to. Maybe China too.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 07 Dec 12 - 04:40 PM

Thanks, Peter. I certainly hope so. They may be the only two 'powers' that could get through to Assad. Threats from all over won't work.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Dec 12 - 04:51 PM

Bobad was one of the main cheerleaders here for the disgraceful shables in Libya.

To further the cause of "democracy and freedom" how fuckin' simplistic can this forum get?
Now that the disgraceful shables is patently obvious, people like bobad and Charley move on to the next "liberal" target......I dont think they even realise the damage they and their ilk do to the wonderful egalitarian, democratic and free Western way of life(irony).

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: bobad
Date: 07 Dec 12 - 04:59 PM

What is it with the love affair armchair socialists have with ruthless dictators?

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Dec 12 - 05:02 PM

Lest I be misunderstood, the cauldron of hate and bloodshed which we have facilitated in the Middle East and North Africa will in all probability hasten the end of Western "culture" we know it.

So the "liberal" conservatives are actually revolutionaries....the biter, bit!

"The people is a beast of muddy brain."

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: bobad
Date: 07 Dec 12 - 05:11 PM

The "cauldron of hate and bloodshed in the Middle East and North Africa" is not in need of facilitation - it manages very well by itself, thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Dec 12 - 05:18 PM

We imagine that we can change these countries into "democratic" consumer societies in the hope of enslaving their people in the money trap......but these folks don't care about money any more than they care about life......checkmate!

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Dec 12 - 05:23 PM

Without Western intervention, Libya would still be a relatively stable country.....as would Iraq.

The extremists now have the weapons and the power.....and what do they see as the greatest threat to their vision?

Western "Democracy"!

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 08 Dec 12 - 10:21 AM

Bobad, what is it with the love affair US administrations have with ruthless dictators?

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 08 Dec 12 - 03:53 PM

999, beware of propaganda for the pretext of a U.S. invasion of Syria. It hasn't yet been established that Assad is using sarin. He might be capable of that then again he has everything to lose if he does.

Remember that Agent Orange was a chemical weapon used in Vietnam.

Meanwhile the U.S. is applying gunboat diplomacy off the shores of Syria by
deploying troops, battle ships and weapons.

How about another war? Would that make everyone happy?

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: bobad
Date: 08 Dec 12 - 04:16 PM

There already is another war - stopping it would make a lot of people not dead.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: bobad
Date: 21 Nov 16 - 08:27 AM

VIDEO of a children's hospital in Aleppo being bombed. It is one of many hospitals that have been deliberately targeted by Assad and the Russians. Notice there has not been one single peep from the resident phony social justice warriors. Any guess as to why that is? You can be sure that if the Israelis were doing this there would be multiple threads with thousands of posts condemning them with vehemence and bold, multi-coloured, upper case invective.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Nov 16 - 08:51 AM

"Notice there has not been one single peep from the resident phony social justice warriors"
A total lie Bobad - there has been outright condemnation of what has happened in Syria from day one - with the exception of your tiny handful of friends who opposed the sending in of troops when he could have been stopped and their full support of selling him ammunition and riot control equipment.
Your crocodile tears for the situation in Aleppo is put into context with your open support for the destruction of schools, hospitals and community shelters by your Israeli friends - particularly in 2015.
We condemn all such acts - you are happy to support one side and use Syria against those who oppose all State terrorism.
Syrian and Israeli fascism are two sides of the same coin.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Nov 16 - 08:53 AM

By the way - sing the fall of Communism, Russia is one of the good guys - it is part of "The Free world" nowadays and a very fine example if it.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: bobad
Date: 21 Nov 16 - 09:46 AM

We have noticed your outright condemnation of the massive slaughter of civilians carried out by the "good guys" as they target markets, hospitals, schools and homes.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Iains
Date: 21 Nov 16 - 09:50 AM

How the western world can condemn Assad while condoning Saudi bombing the Yemen escapes me. Syria had a stable secular government and Assad was re elected with a majority in a widely supervised election.
Saudi by contrast is a one religion state with medieval, barbaric practises where women cannot even drive cars.
The true reason for destabilisation in Syria is to run a pipeline to take Quatari gas to europe. There is a lot of American smoke blowing about good and bad terrorists.
Putin's take is that a good terrorist no longer scavenges oxygen. Having seen what a fine job was done in Iraq and Libya, Assad invited Russia to come to his aid. Legally Russia and her allies are the only legitimate entities there. Everyone else is invading a sovereign nation.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Nov 16 - 10:16 AM

"How the western world can condemn Assad while condoning Saudi bombing the Yemen escapes me"
Who on earth does?
Cameron went to pay homage at the funeral of the Saudi Patriarch while a journalist was being administered 1000 lashes for speaking out of turn - who can condone that - except the British right?
Shortly after Arabs began their protest over the social conditions and lack of freedom in several countries, that same Cameron launched a massive arms fair so sell arms to despots like the Saudi rulers (who used them in Yemen) and right-wing regimes like Bahrain and Israel - who can condone that - except the British right?
Where were you people when we were condemning the sale of chemicals possibly being used for stockpiling weapons by the Assad regime.
We have condemned every aspect of this war, including Britain's appeasing of the regime, while you turds stayed silent - or, in a couple of cases, actually supported the sale of equipment to repress the protestors.
Don't come this shit Bobad - appeasement of terrorism is your bag - not ours
That goes for both of you, with your latest support for the new fascist on the block - Trump
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Iains
Date: 21 Nov 16 - 10:37 AM

Where are the sanctions on Saudi? They do not exist. Why do we have sanctions on Syria? Because of cheap propaganda that the gullible believe without question. As yet there has been no proof offered that Assad had used chemical weapons, but the US has admitted to using depleted uranium( a true weapon of mass destruction) in Syria while participating in a totally illegal war. Also many of the terrorists fighting there are both trained and supported by the US.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Nov 16 - 10:51 AM

"Where are the sanctions on Saudi? They do not exist. Why do we have sanctions on Syria"
Go and ask the Government - I have no idea how their double standards work.
They have known about the Syrian torture chambers and "disappearing" of many thousands of their opponents for nearly twenty years, yet they remained lose friends with the Assad family - like the Saudis, they considered both a 'safe pair of hands'
Action against Assad was only taken when the massacre of the Syrian people became impossible to ignore, and then it was only half-arsed.
Apparently we need Saudi to keep our SUVs on the road - money wins out over humanity every time.
Cheap Propaganda
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2016/08/harrowing-accounts-of-torture-inhuman-conditions-and-mass-deaths-in-syrias-prisons/
MORE "CHEAP PROPAGANDA"
Is Syria another of your crusades, alongside of Trump?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: bobad
Date: 21 Nov 16 - 11:27 AM

There Are Reportedly No Hospitals Left in Aleppo

Russian and Syrian strikes on rebel-held eastern Aleppo have reportedly taken out the last hospitals that serve the 250,000 civilians who still live in the city.

The Atlantic

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Nov 16 - 11:29 AM

TRUMP on SYRIA

TRUMP on SAUDI ARABIA

SEVEN FASCIST REGIMES ENTHUSIASTICALLY SUPPORTED by AMERICA
Where America goes, Britain obediently follows.
RIGHT WING BRITAIN

Take your pick
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Iains
Date: 21 Nov 16 - 11:53 AM

I have no doubt if there was no oil and no pipeline routes in the middle east there would likely be no wars either. But the politicians will never tell the true story.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: bobad
Date: 21 Nov 16 - 11:58 AM

Here's some of what the "good guys" are up to in Syria.

Syria's war: 'Russian air raids kill 9,400 in one year'
        
Russia, Syrian army accused of destroying hospital, killing at least 2

SYRIA CARNAGE Russia has killed more civilians than ISIS as Putin's jets blitz war-ravaged Syria

Aleppo horror: dozens of civilians killed in Russian and Syrian strikes

Russian airstrikes in Syria killed 2,000 civilians in six months

Moscow 'killing more civilians than Isis' in Syria

UN slams Russia, Syria for killing children in Aleppo

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Iains
Date: 21 Nov 16 - 12:22 PM

Bobad
of course all your quoted sources have an impeccable provenance.
We all know the mainstream news will never tell a lie.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Nov 16 - 01:48 PM

Not quite sure of the point of all your links is - nobody here is supporting Russian action - the atrocities carried out by Russia are indisputable.
Russia is now part of the "Free World" so any atrocities they carry out are of the Free world, as is Israel - America was leader of the Free World while it was pouring burning petrol on the Vietnamese and spraying their crops with carcinogenic chemicals
The more thoughtful among us question the the "free" when applied to such countries.
What is interesting here is that neither of you pair of idiots seem to be aware that the actions of Saudi are no better or worse than those carried out by Russia in Syria - I believe you disputed this Ians - ot did I misunderstand your "cheap propaganda" reference.
Keep up lads - it really isn't too hard to understand.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Iains
Date: 21 Nov 16 - 02:04 PM

No doubt time will tell who are the goodies and who are the baddies. I have my views on it, others have theirs. Russia was invited in by the legitimate government. America is there illegally as has been pointed out.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Nov 16 - 03:03 PM

"legitimate government"#
Can a state headed by a mass murderer be described as having a "legitimate government"?
Not in my book
Wonder where that puts Nazi Germany !!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Iains
Date: 21 Nov 16 - 03:53 PM

I would be surprised if there are many governments in the world with clean hands. Britain especially has a murky past. You should also realise that most of the middle east is an artificial construct with borders placed as pretty lines on a largely british map. I think you will find in years to come that the so called arab spring was largely a movement of farmers to the cities due to the Levant being in the grip of the worst drought in 900 years.
Mr Carroll you seem very selective in those governments you wish to condemn. I would recommend you put down whatever sources you use and cast your information net wider and hopefully get a more balanced view.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: bobad
Date: 21 Nov 16 - 03:58 PM

The Syrian government forfeited it's legitimacy when it ordered security forces to kill unarmed protesters.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Nov 16 - 04:05 PM

Ians, Jim is a devout "liberal".....he has but one mindset, the one projected by the media and the political elite.

Thinking outside of the box is a cardinal sin, despite his protests to the contrary he and his little gang of like minds are where they are told to be, several decades behind the game.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 Nov 16 - 06:08 PM

Gee, Bubo, I seem to recall another middle-eastern country running bulldozers over unarmed protesters & such like.....

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: bobad
Date: 21 Nov 16 - 08:29 PM

Right, one was an accident the other a government ordered killing - exactly the same thing...........idiot!

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 Nov 16 - 09:58 PM

You missed the "& such like" apparently, Bubo.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Nov 16 - 04:45 AM

"Mr Carroll you seem very selective in those governments you wish to condemn."
I think you'll fnd the reverse is the case - anybody who describes condemnation of Syria as "cheap propaganda" and refuses to respond to the facts of what has happened there over numerous decades leaves themselves with little room to make such accusations..
"Jim is a devout "liberal"
You can hurl this statement about without qualifying it as many times as you like, but until you disprove that fact that, by definition, to b a socialist is to be on the left, your ignorance of politics will continue to shine like a lighthouse - as will your hated of minorities and your adherence to the state underline your fascism.
Any moron can repeat untruths without attempting to prove them - anout the only thing you have ever proved on this forum.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Iains
Date: 22 Nov 16 - 04:59 AM

mr carroll



    "Learn how to see. Realize that everything connects to everything else"

Leonardo Da Vinci

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Nov 16 - 06:43 AM

"Learn how to see. Realize that everything connects to everything else"
Leonardo Da Vinci

"Without context or explanation that statement is meaningless"
Jim Carroll

It would be good if you actually responded to Syria's terrorism raher than appeasing it though!
I very much doubt if there's too much chance of that happening though - waddya think?
"Mr Carroll"
Your frosty, disapproving tone gives you the air of a Dickensian schoolmaster.
I really don't have any problem with people using my first name - even those I find somewhat strange, but maybe some people prefer that to honest, friendly debate!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: bobad
Date: 22 Nov 16 - 11:29 AM

The Assad regime in Syria has killed More Palestinians than Israel has In 60 years.

No outrage about that from our resident phony social justice warriors who hypocritically only care about the Palestinians when they are killed as a result of wars waged by the terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah against Israel.

No Jews, no news.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Nov 16 - 01:10 PM

"The Assad regime in Syria has killed More Palestinians than Israel has In 60 years."
For fucks sake - what kind of an animal tots up the dead to make points?
Both are terrorist states - who cares which of them marks up the highest score?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Nov 16 - 01:26 PM

Bobad
You seem to be implying that somebody is appeasing Syrian terrorism here
The only one who is so far is your running mate who has dismissed condemnation of the Assad regime as "cheap propaganda"
Perhaps you should address your remarks to him?
Of the two, Israel is by far the most dangerous - unless Syria has acquired nuclear weapons without us knowing about it.
Syria is not carrying out a policy of ethnic cleansing and it appears to be a moderate state as far as religion is concerned
That doesn''t lessen its crimes against humanity and war crimes, but it removes the "chosen by god" aspect of its terrorism from the equasion.
Israel on the other hand, is guilty of both and, as anybody knows, if a religion driven terrorist state has a bomb - DUCK!!!!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Iains
Date: 23 Nov 16 - 11:51 AM

Jim,
you have a very black and white take on the world. I think you would find it hard to find anyone on this forum that would not condemn the situation in Syria. However allocating blame for the situation having arisen is no easy task. You make all manner of sweeping assertions with great confidence in the veracity of your sources. I dispute the veracity of your sources and your interpretation of events. There are multiple agendas at play in Syria and untangling the truth is near impossible. The western recognition of good and bad terrorists should give anyone pause for thought.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Nov 16 - 12:46 PM

"However allocating blame for the situation having arisen is no easy task. "
It is if you are interested in the subject
Syria is in the hands of a despot who has been torturing and killing his opponents and ordinary Syrian people who got in his way for several decades - we know this from Amnesty reports (one of which you have been given).
Assad al Bashir's response to the Arab Spring protests was extreme and Britain decided to turn the other way and do nothing when the killing escalated in Homs - there's a very long and disgusting thread on it.
It's not strictly true that we completely turned our backs - our 'representatives' in Westminster were quite happy to sell riot equipment, armoured cars, water cannons.... etc., to help suppress the protests, having licensed at least one shipment of sniper ammunition previously.
The protests turned into a civil war, Russia and China vetoed U.N. action and the U.N. did nothing - our Parliament actually voted not to intervene even when the extent of the massacres were known.
Isis moved in, people with a genuine belief in modernising Syria were sucked in and, for political convenience, are now labelled "terrorists", which they are not.
The British establishment has now, humanitarian as they are, turned their backs on the refugees driven out by the conflict and Eorope is carrying dead children OUT of the SEA.
The great danger now is that, once Isis is defeated the opposition forces will begin fighting each other.
If there had been significant supplies of oil involved, none of this would have been allowed to happen - the U.S, marines would have been up the beach faster than a Bondi surfer and we'd have been right there behind them to blow their noses and wipe their bums.
Western Governments never did let Humanitarian considerations get in the way of political and economic self-interest.
There - not complicated at all really.
Now - what's your version of events?
Please don't patronise me, but by all means feel free to provide alternative information to fill in my ignorance.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Nov 16 - 12:52 PM

By the way - a matter of semantics, I suppose
You do not "dispute" the veracity..... etc.
You have never referred to them in my presence - I'm not sure you know who they are (apart from that very biased and Partisan Human Rights charity 'Amnesty!!)
So far you have just denied what I have said without putting anything in its place - different kettle of dingbats altogether.
Jim Carroll.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Greg F.
Date: 23 Nov 16 - 12:58 PM

allocating blame for the situation having arisen is no easy task.

Sure it is. No Problem!

According to the Trumpists and their supporters on this forum (names available upon request) it's all Hillary Clinton's fault, dontcha know.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Iains
Date: 23 Nov 16 - 01:19 PM

Isis moved in, people with a genuine belief in modernising Syria were sucked in and, for political convenience, are now labelled "terrorists", which they are not.

Jim your problem would seem to be a bit more severe than semantics.
I find your mindset quite fascinating.

Was it not Goebbels that said: ... people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it. You prove to be the perfect example.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Nov 16 - 01:40 PM

"I find your mindset quite fascinating. "
You're patronising again - somewhat pompously this tim
Instead of the bullshit quotes - where is your alternative scenario?
Are you seriously suggesting Amnesty is lying?
As the song says;
"Then bring your witness love
And I'll never deny you".
I assume you never read the 'Homs Horror" thread otherwise you would not be so foolhardy as to venture into this particular quagmire?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: bobad
Date: 23 Nov 16 - 04:45 PM

"In all, six people were killed—an entire family comprising a couple and their four young children. According to one account, they were hiding in a bomb shelter when a helicopter dropped the chlorine-laden canisters, and were unable to escape in time. Graphic footage broadcast by the AMC showed the lifeless corpses of the girl and three boys, their faces discolored, eyes glazed, mouths wide open. "Where are the Arabs? Where are they?" an agitated man asks repeatedly as the camera films. "If the Arabs were united, Bashar wouldn't have done this to us. But the Arab states are all traitors."

Assad Just Gassed an Entire Family to Death

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Iains
Date: 24 Nov 16 - 03:42 AM

I assume the destruction of vast swathes of the world heritage site of Palmyra was part of the modernisation of Syria by Isis.
You do talk some absolute rubbish Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Nov 16 - 04:09 AM

"I assume the destruction of vast swathes of the world heritage site of Palmyra was part of the modernisation of Syria by Isis."
Why should you assume such a thing - what a stupid thing to say - who else has suggested it?
You and Bobad are the only ones supporting extreme terrorism in any way.
Even bobad's 'condemnation of Assad's behavior is incomplete - he neglects to mention the support from Britain to enable him to carry out such acta - including the sale of chemicals that may have enabled him to build up the stockpile of chemical weapons he uses against his people.
No, straw men and bluster aside - I gave you my account of what has happened in Syria - where is your alternative - "absolute rubbish" doesn't hack it.
I suggest you put up put up some real facts rather than the insults you objected to so strongly not sol long ago when you believed they were being aimed at you.
C'mon - give us something to work on - this is all evasive shit.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Nov 16 - 06:09 AM

Fear not, JOM (Voice of the People) is perfectly prepared to be charged with and found guilty of things he MAY HAVE DONE without any "evidence" being produced. After all those are his rules aren't they?

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Nov 16 - 06:17 AM

"MAY HAVE DONE without any "evidence""
The evidence of Assad's crimes have been produced and are fully accepted by the world despite your defending his being sold ammunition, chemicals and riot control equipment.
Not surprised you are prepered to defend him though - that seems to be what you go for.

"Fear not, JOM ("
From another thread - it will go up each time you express your insecurity in this way

"A reminder
"Here is a link for you Jom:"
"By the way JOM"
"how boastful a man can get doesn't it JOM?"
"Don't worry JOM"
"every time you mention the name Woodcock I know I've got through to you and you are getting rattled."
You really should read our own posts sometime - it would help avoid the foot-in-mouths - the "Rattle of an Simple Man", as the screenplay writer described it.
Jim Carroll"

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Iains
Date: 24 Nov 16 - 07:33 AM

http://www.globalresearch.ca/voices-from-syria-refute-western-propaganda-us-nato-supported-terrorists-involved-in-countless-atro

This does not quite follow your narrative Jim.
You tell me where the truth lies, and the proof.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Nov 16 - 08:18 AM

"This does not quite follow your narrative Jim."
Neither does it contradict the masses of real information that is available on the masses of atrocities committed by the Syrian regime, much of which has been given already on other threads
Jad Nasr is who he is - a sometimes translator for the Syrian Government
Jad Nasr lives in Syria. He's 29, and he has a Master's in English literature. He sometimes uses his considerable talents by serving as translator for high Syrian dignitaries, such as the Grand Mufti.
It really does take one swallow to make a summer.
Can we clear one thing up - are you actually claiming that the torture, massacres, chemical attacks, shooting down of women and children on the streets, decades of repression and mass murder..... are any way in doubt.
Is that what you are suggesting?
I have to say that this is a first for Mudcat.
As much as Teribus and Keith have attempted to justify having dealings with this terrorist regime, they have not gone do far to defend it, as extremist right as they are.
Is that your position - that all this might not have happened?
If so, you are going to do better than this   
THE ASSAD FILES
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Nov 16 - 02:32 AM

"The evidence of Assad's crimes have been produced and are fully accepted by the world" - Jim Carroll

I do not think that any disputes that statement.

The dispute centres around your Walter Pardon and the Rolling Stones claims about the British Government supplying Assad with the means with which to carry out his democide.

1: You have no proof whatsoever that ammunition was EVER supplied, only that ONE export licence was issued in 2009. ALL export licences were revoked in 2010 and the uprising and civil unrest did not start in Syria until 2011.

2: BIS conducted an investigation into the chemicals sent to Syria and found that the quantity supplied matched production of the products by the "end user" companies stated on the export documentation. Those chemicals exported to Syria between 2004 and 2010 could therefore not possibly have been used in the manufacture of chemical weapons used by Assad since 2012.

3: Jim Carroll also claimed and provided a link that he claimed stated that electrical good supplied from a company in the UK had been used by the Assad regime to torture rebel prisoners and sympathisers - the report by the NGO he provided a link to of course stated nothing of the sort.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Nov 16 - 03:00 AM

The article that Iains has provided the link for seems highly implausible and is undoubtedly biased.

Unrest in Syria has always boiled away just below the surface, the secular Ba'athist regime in Syria run by the minority Alawites ruled the country by fear and repression in exactly the same way that the Ba'athist regime did in Iraq before the toppling of Saddam Hussein.

It was an unprovoked assault by a police officer on a man in January 2011 that sparked off unrest and civil disobedience in Syria. The Daraa raid was a raid by the Syrian police to arrest 15 children who were suspected of daubing walls with anti-government/anti-Assad slogans. The first deaths were the result of police officers firing on a civilian crowd of demonstrators from inside ambulances. I wonder why Jad Nasr and Ms Kortwright found it essential to omit that part of the tragedy from their article.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Nov 16 - 04:28 AM

"You have no proof whatsoever that ammunition was EVER supplied, "
I supplied evidence of the licence being issued - you denied it then provided haldf a dozen contradictory excuses - it was issued but withdrawn, it was issued and the shipment never took place, the ammunition was for sporting rifles, it was sent too early to be used at Homs, it was the wrong size for the Syrian Sniper's weapons and now back to it was never issued in the first place - with the new addition that all licences were revoked in 2010.
You also asked, with your usual charm and grace how the "the U.K. could possibly have known what was going on in Syria without the aid of a crystal ball".
That's an impressive list of excuses - even for you.
It's a pity that not a single one of them came with a shred of documented evidence
The World, Britain included, had the Amnesty Report of the tortures and mass murders long before trouble broke out in the Arab countries - they said nothing, did nothing and continued as if nothing was happening.
When Assad's men deserted him and fled abroad they begged Britain to use economic and political pressure to stop the killing - they pointed out Assad's personal ties and respect for Britain - those pleas were ignored.
The Syrian deserters suggested that Britain could seize the millions of pounds worth of property owned by the Assad family in London - those suggestions were totally ignored and, throughout the Homs massacres, Assad's gofer brother-in-law visited London regularly going about Assad's business - nothing was done to prevent him.
Britain wrung their hands in horror at the street massacres in Homs and did precisely NOTHING
Given the proved reputation of the Assad regime, they should hev beed sold nothing
Britain was condemned internationally for its sale of chemicals at the time Assad was found to be using chemicals - there was never a suggestion that they could not be used for weapons, just the word of the Syrians that they were for "toothpaste"
Such materials should never have been sold to the mass murderer Assad was known to be.
Britain sold riot control equipment, water cannons and armoured cars that were used to crush the Syrian protests - an undisputed fact.
The equipment sold by Britain and used in Syrian prisons were electrical hand generators (Meggers).
They are a common piece of electrical test equipment in the electrical trade (I used one regularly and still have one here).
Their use as instruments for interrogation is long established - cheap and convenient, leaving no scars - the faster you wind the handle, the greater the electric shock - even eejits like Teribus could master the technique in a matter of minutes.
ASSAD IS A KNOW FASCIST DESPOT - HE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SOLD ANYTHING - HE WAS ONE OF BRITAIN'S LONG TERM TRADING PARTNERS AND, SHOULD HE TRIUMPH IN SYRIA, NO DOUBT WILL BE AGAIN
"We do do trade and we do do trade in armaments with Governments that are not democratic and have bad human rights records""
Vince Cable Trade Minister.
Committee on Arms Control evidence 7th February, 2012"
Syria is one of those Governments
There - said it all again - for the last time
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Nov 16 - 05:10 AM

"I supplied evidence of the licence being issued - you denied it then provided haldf a dozen contradictory excuses - it was issued but withdrawn, it was issued and the shipment never took place, the ammunition was for sporting rifles, it was sent too early to be used at Homs, it was the wrong size for the Syrian Sniper's weapons and now back to it was never issued in the first place - with the new addition that all licences were revoked in 2010."

Old ground that has been gone over before - but Jim Carroll once again misrepresents - those reading this forum have been shown very clearly another example of this sort of behaviour on another thread.

Now tell us where the contradictory statements are Jim.

1: Where and when did I ever deny that an export licence was issued? Jim Carroll lie and misrepresentation #1

2: All export licences related to goods being sent to Syria were revoked by the British Government in 2010. IIRC the EU followed suit shortly after. That is fact and does in no way contradict anything previously stated.

3: The licence was issued by the British Government but there has never been any evidence put forward that any ammunition was ever shipped by the individual who applied for and received the export licence. Still no contradictions there Jim

4: "the ammunition was for sporting rifles" Ehmmm No Jim the ammunition can be used in sporting rifles mere fact, 7.62x51mm Standard NATO ammunition can be used in some 0.308 calibre rifles, I should know I own two rifles of that calibre one can fire standard NATO rounds, the other cannot it has to fire 0.308 WIN.Still no contradictions there Jim

5: it was sent too early to be used at Homs Licence issued in 2009, export licences revoked in 2010, so IF it was ever sent then it had to have been sent two years before any civil unrest broke out in Syria. The value declared on the licence was £30,000 which would equate to around 110,000 rounds - minute amount if you are supplying an Army and a Police Force. Mere observation on examination of facts and proposed theories - Still no contradictions Jim

6: "it was the wrong size for the Syrian Sniper's weapons" Simple statement of fact when you consider that Russia supplies Assad with all his weapons and has done since 1967. Russian weapons of that calibre fire a 7.62x39mm round, NATO weapons of that calibre fire 7.62x51mm rounds - NATO rounds are 12mm too long for the chamber of the weapons used by Assad's forces - Still no contradictions Jim

7: "and now back to it was never issued in the first place" - Where? When? Repetition of Jim Carroll Lie #1.

A musical question for you Jim. On which Rolling Stones album do you think Walter Pardon performed best as lead singer?

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Nov 16 - 06:17 AM

Load of crap again Teribus
It's all on Homs Horror
Your pathetic musical garbage is an attempt to avoid every single point I have just made
Even if I id get the denialo of the license being issued - which I didn't, there are half a dozen more excuses you have offered and have been admitted to by your silence on them.
The situation in Syria is exactly as I outlined - never mind the bullshit, if you want to discuss it, do so with proof to back it yup - otherwise, lie down - you're dead - or drunk maybe?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Nov 16 - 06:49 AM

For someone who types and posts the following:

"Even if I id get the denialo of the license being issued - which I didn't, there are half a dozen more excuses you have offered and have been admitted to by your silence on them."

To then post:

" never mind the bullshit, if you want to discuss it, do so with proof to back it yup - otherwise, lie down - you're dead - or drunk maybe?"

Only an observation, but it would appear that it is you who needs to either lay off the sauce or start taking more water with it. You should be charged with massacring the English language - your at the stage of almost needing an interpreter.

Now then Jim where and when did I ever state that no export licence had been issued?

Simple enough question - bet I will get no response from Jim Carroll because Jim Carroll just makes up shit and here he is having been caught out doing it again.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Nov 16 - 07:33 AM

Will this Do


Subject: RE: BS: Homs horror
From: Teribus - PM
Date: 21 Mar 12 - 03:03 PM

"Except the documented small arms ammunition"

Documented where?? A news paper?? The Daily Mail eh? Are you serious?
Now piss off
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Nov 16 - 09:45 AM

"You should be charged with massacring the English language - your at the stage of almost needing an interpreter."

Oh, how delicious is that! 😂😂😂

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Nov 16 - 10:06 AM

" your at the stage of almost needing an interpreter."
Didn't notice that Steve - thanks
You couldn't make it up!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Nov 16 - 12:28 PM

Of course Shaw - "your" instead of "you're" - truly worthy of comment.

Now in your socks and open-toed sandal wearing teacher mode Shaw what do you make of this:

"Even if I id get the denialo of the license being issued - which I didn't, there are half a dozen more excuses you have offered and have been admitted to by your silence on them." - Jim Carroll

It appears our paragon of the UK's educational system simply gave that a pass.

Guess I'll just have to start correcting Jim's papers whenever he posts eh Shaw? He has never liked me doing that in the past and accused me of talking down to him.

Now Jim asks me "Will this do?" - Do for what?

Now the Homs Thread where you started out by stating that the United Kingdom {As in the UK Government} had supplied Assad with weapons.

This was a gross misrepresentation, or in other words a lie, that Keith A of Hertford, 999 and myself pulled Jim up on.

So as the thread progressed Jim changed his story - He then changed it to the United Kingdom {As in the UK Government} had supplied Assad with ammunition - ANOTHER LIE that he was pulled up on by Keith A and myself.

Finally towards the end of the thread we get the admission from Jim:

Subject: RE: BS: Homs horror
From: Jim Carroll - PM
Date: 22 Mar 12 - 07:18 AM

"The total of my evidence is that Britain licensed an order of small arms ammunition.......

Now that is one hell of a change of story from the UK Government supplying Assad with weapons being used to kill Syrian civilians in Homs in 2012 to the British Department of Trade granting an export licence to a private individual for £30,000 worth of small arms ammunition in 2009 without one shred of evidence that the order ever went through or that the goods were ever delivered. Only took a thread of about 750 posts to convince the gormless lying prat to tell the truth, but he still keeps trying to resurrect his myths and lies.

Carroll is not very good at arguing against hard fact, but there again neither are you Shaw, in Jim Carroll's own words {paraphrased} your argument is so poor you have to resort to picking up typo's.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Nov 16 - 12:42 PM

"where you started out by stating that the United Kingdom {As in the UK Government} had supplied Assad with weapons."
I posted a piece of information about ammunition - Keith chipped in with "all you could come up with was a few sniper rifles".
I also pointed out the supplying of armoured cars, water cannon and other riot control equipment - you can pedantically claim they are not weapons if you wish - ask the people they were used on what they were.
"Now Jim asks me "Will this do?" - Do for what?"
You lied when you said you had not denied that a licence had been issued - that's what
Want it again?
THere you go!

"Except the documented small arms ammunition"
Documented where?? A news paper?? The Daily Mail eh? Are you serious?"
That'll do for another verbatim example of your having lied that you requested elsewhere.
To repeat now piss off
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Nov 16 - 07:31 PM

Jaysus. I can't resist.

"Carroll is not very good at arguing against hard fact, but there again neither are you Shaw, in Jim Carroll's own words {paraphrased} your argument is so poor you have to resort to picking up typo's."

Well, Bill, there should be a full stop after "Shaw" and a capital letter to start the next sentence. And where did that apostrophe in "typo's" come from?! 😂

It pays to ignore punctuation and spelling glitches as long as they don't cloud the meaning. If you choose to pick them up, be prepared to have your own mistakes highlighted. You make plenty, and, generally, no-one bothers to pick you up. Do feel free to highlight mine. I'm not bothered.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Nov 16 - 02:26 AM

"Except the documented small arms ammunition"
Documented where?? A news paper?? The Daily Mail eh? Are you serious?"

That was when you were still insisting that the ammunition in question had been delivered and was being used to kill civilians in Homs. Your story in the Homs thread changed as I have stated below from British Weapons sent by the British Government to Assad to finally you stating that all that had happened was that a licence had been issued. You have yet to prove that a single round was ever sent to Syria.

But just for the record and to put things in context here is the full exchange:

Subject: RE: BS: Homs horror
From: Teribus - PM
Date: 20 Mar 12 - 07:06 PM

Ah, so in short, you have no proof at all that the British Government sold anything to the Assad regime in Syria. It was just something you read in a newspaper, and having read the passage you misunderstood it and got it all wrong - something that I bet is not too unusual for you.

Subject: RE: BS: Homs horror
From: Jim Carroll - PM
Date: 21 Mar 12 - 07:14 AM

"WHO HAS SUPPLIED NOTHING TO SYRIA!" Teribus from a previous post
Except the documented small arms ammunition - as you say, sniper bullets
Nothing else new then?

What you are arguing there Jim Carroll is that the ammunition was supplied by the British Government and sent to Syria and that Carroll is a barefaced lie. One that you were pulled up on.

Still waiting for the post of mine where I deny that any export licence was ever granted.

Thanks Steve, I'll try harder next time.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Nov 16 - 07:55 AM

"That was when you were still insisting that the ammunition in question had been delivered and was being used to kill civilians in Homs"
No it wasn't - you denied there was any record of the sale and then you lied about having ever said such a thing - you lied
"Ah, so in short, you have no proof at all that the British Government sold anything to the Assad regime in Syria."
And there it is again - double proof of your lying
Checkmate
"Your story in the Homs thread changed"
On;ly in the sense that my information was addes to while I searched for more information.
As you provided none, none came from you.
You changed your argument at least half a dozen times - you have a list.
"Still waiting for the post of mine where I deny that any export licence was ever granted."
You've just had it (again) this time you supplied it yourself.
Own goal and checkmate.
Maybe we'll get a response to the list of the other half-dozen occasions you have lie4d - why quit when you're on a roll?
Come back when the pubs close (but I suggest you sleep it off this time)
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Nov 16 - 03:07 AM

"No it wasn't - you denied there was any record of the sale and then you lied about having ever said such a thing - you lied"

Really Carroll? Is this another stick that you have grabbed the wrong end of? By the way, as you seem to be losing the place yet again, the "lie" you originally accused me of was denying that an export licence was issued - now apparently I am being accused of lying by stating the truth.

The undeniable fact is that there are no records of any sale, otherwise you would have produced them and quoted them over 4 years ago to substantiate your claim - you failed to do so then because they don't exist. The only thing that your Daily Mail article mentioned was that an export licence had been granted, no mention of any sale, only one of the things you got wrong and totally misunderstood when you read the article. Your contention was that the British Government had sold weapons to the Assad regime - that Carroll was a deliberate misrepresentation, in short a lie.

Jim Carroll - 26 Nov 16 - 07:55 AM - No reference in this post to any post of mine where it can be shown that I have lied. Tell me Jim why is it that you cannot back up your statements?

Keep floundering about Carroll

Example of quoting something that I have posted:

Subject: RE: BS: Homs horror
From: GUEST,Teribus - PM
Date: 18 Mar 12 - 04:10 AM

Your contention was that British supplied weapons were slaughtering civilians in Homs - The inference you were hoping to get across was that the British Government had supplied weapons that the Assad regime was using on its own people and that the British Government were fully aware of this.

After digging around it has been shown quite conclusively that:

1: The British Government has sold no weapons to Syria - The Truth

2: That the 154 export licences issued by the British Government for anything being exported to Syria were all revoked in line with EU rules - According to Carroll this is me denying that any export licence was ever issued

3: There are no records of sale or delivery of the ammunition mentioned in your Daily Mail article - The Truth


So all in all Christmas your deliberate falsehood was examined and found wanting on just about every level going. Rather than admitting to making a mistake, an act which appears to be beyond your integrity, and clarifying your position, you dug your heels in attempted to defend the impossible (in which exercise you failed) and started throwing insults about and then complained when they were hurled back at you.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Nov 16 - 05:00 AM

A reminder
"every time you mention the name Woodcock I know I've got through to you and you are getting rattled.""
Really Carroll
Keep floundering about Carroll
So all in all Christmas
For JOM:
Christmas
No need for reminders JOM I have nothing but the utmost contempt for you and everything you stand for. Not many humans wander this planet without one single redeeming feature - you seem to have managed that without even trying.
The Truth according to JOM - thick as shit and proud of it
I will repeat IT YET AGAIN FOR THE BENEFIT OF THOSE AMONG US WHO ARE TOO BLOODY THICK TO UNDERSTAND PLAIN ENGLISH (i.e. YOU RAGGY)
"complete and utter buffoon"
"That by the way THICKO "
"clueless ignoramus of truly astounding degree"
"Carroll"
"Have you found an echo JOM?"
Or have you always wandered through life making a complete and utter JOM-like CUNT of yourself?
Carroll
"Here is a link for you Jom:"
"By the way JOM"
"how boastful a man can get doesn't it JOM?"
"Don't worry JOM"
You really should read our own posts sometime - it would help avoid the foot-in-mouths - the "Rattle of an Simple Man", as the screenplay writer described it.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Nov 16 - 10:22 AM

Only person with their foot in their mouth in this discussion Carroll is you.

You are at the stage now where you cannot even fix it in your own mind what it is I was supposed to have lied about. First it's this and then it's that - you're making a complete and utter fool of yourself throwing accusations about like confetti based upon your own misinterpretation and misunderstanding of an newspaper article which explains why, when asked to give the reference to the post of mine where I lied you are unable to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: Homs horror
From: GUEST,Teribus - PM
Date: 18 Mar 12 - 04:10 AM

Your contention was that British supplied weapons were slaughtering civilians in Homs - The inference you were hoping to get across was that the British Government had supplied weapons that the Assad regime was using on its own people and that the British Government were fully aware of this.

After digging around it has been shown quite conclusively that:

1: The British Government has sold no weapons to Syria - The Truth

2: That the 154 export licences issued by the British Government for anything being exported to Syria were all revoked in line with EU rules - According to Carroll this is me denying that any export licence was ever issued

3: There are no records of sale or delivery of the ammunition mentioned in your Daily Mail article - The Truth

Now then Jim which of those three points is incorrect and where is your proof that confirms any of being incorrect?
Where and when have I ever denied that an export licence was issued?

The Daily Mail Article

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Nov 16 - 10:33 AM

A reminder
"every time you mention the name Woodcock I know I've got through to you and you are getting rattled.""
Carroll
Really Carroll
Keep floundering about Carroll
So all in all Christmas
For JOM:
Christmas
No need for reminders JOM I have nothing but the utmost contempt for you and everything you stand for. Not many humans wander this planet without one single redeeming feature - you seem to have managed that without even trying.
The Truth according to JOM - thick as shit and proud of it
I will repeat IT YET AGAIN FOR THE BENEFIT OF THOSE AMONG US WHO ARE TOO BLOODY THICK TO UNDERSTAND PLAIN ENGLISH (i.e. YOU RAGGY)
"complete and utter buffoon"
"That by the way THICKO "
"clueless ignoramus of truly astounding degree"
"Carroll"
"Have you found an echo JOM?"
Or have you always wandered through life making a complete and utter JOM-like CUNT of yourself?
Carroll
"Here is a link for you Jom:"
"By the way JOM"
"how boastful a man can get doesn't it JOM?"
"Don't worry JOM"
You really should read our own posts sometime - it would help avoid the foot-in-mouths - the "Rattle of an Simple Man", as the screenplay writer described it.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Nov 16 - 11:17 AM

Needle stuck Jim?

I suppose that you do have nothing left to say, having proved on this thread that you are a fool and a liar. Same could be said of your efforts on the "No poppies" thread as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: bobad
Date: 15 Dec 16 - 01:23 PM

A powerful piece on the fall of Aleppo by Canadian author and journalist Terry Glavin:


The fall of Aleppo shows us exactly what we have become
Published on: December 14, 2016 | Last Updated: December 14, 2016 12:54 PM EST

Aleppo has fallen. The last and sturdiest bastion of the Syrian uprising is gone. The Battle of Aleppo is over, the revolution is finished, and the Syrian mass murderer Bashar Assad has won. Russia has won. Iran has won. Hezbollah has won. The United States has lost. The United Nations has lost, and the bloody war in Syria, already having taken nearly half a million lives, goes on.

Aleppo mattered, it should go without saying, but it's worthwhile enumerating what did not matter. You can start with Aleppo's 31,000 dead and proceed from there through each and every statutory war crime codified by the International Criminal Court.

Mass murder by chlorine gas. Massacres of innocents. Bombardments by Russian jet fighters. The deliberate targeting of hospitals and clinics. The firing of mortar rounds into crowded neighbourhoods. The terror of barrel bombs dropped from Syrian army helicopters. The starvation siege that followed the city's encirclement by Shia death squads and Assadist militias on Sept. 8.

None of that mattered, not the hourly imagery on Instagram and Youtube and Twitter of corpse-strewn streets and decapitated infants, and not the gut-wrenching final goodbyes uploaded to mobile phones or sent by text from the survivors in the rebel-held ruins of the Old City, the al-Shaar district, and the backstreets of Sheikh Saeed.

Leaning against a wall, his tattered Adidas hoodie drawn against the rain, the young English teacher, reporter and activist Abdulkafi Al-Hamdo managed to use his cellphone camera to upload his goodbye to the video-streaming service Periscope on Monday night.

"What I want to say is, don't believe anymore in the United Nations. Don't believe anymore in the international community. Don't think that they are not satisfied with what's going on. They are satisfied that we are being killed, that we are facing one of the most difficult, or the most serious, or the most horrible massacres that is in our history.

"Russia doesn't want us to go out alive. They want us dead. Assad is the same … but at least we know that we were a free people. We wanted freedom. We didn't want anything else but freedom. You know, this world doesn't like freedom, it seems."

There is no plausible defence any of us can mount against Al-Hambdo's plain-spoken indictment. In the world's citadels of democracy, there are no popular constituencies sufficient to the task of commanding our elected leaders to put their backs into the emancipation of the Syrian people from their tormentors. After all, you know, quagmire and all that. Broach the subject of NATO enforcing a modicum of order in the Syrian abattoir by means of, say, a no-fly zone, and you'll be denounced as a warmonger in the mould of the arch-villains George W. Bush and Tony Blair.
Related

The truth of it is we'd just rather not take the trouble. We aren't prepared to suffer the sacrifices demanded of the commitments to universal rights we profess, so we absolve ourselves by talking about "the Muslim world" as though it were a distant planet. We talk about Arabs as though they were a different species. It's easier on the conscience that way.

Between the drooling bigotries of the isolationist Right and the clever platitudes of the "anti-imperialist" Left, the only place left to address the solemn obligations we owe one another as human beings is in negotiations over the codicils of international trade agreements, or in the rituals of deliberately unenforceable resolutions entertained by the United Nations General Assembly.

Just last Friday, Foreign Affairs Minister Stéphane Dion and his diplomats conducted just such a ceremony in sponsoring a non-binding General Assembly resolution demanding an immediate cessation of hostilities in Syria, humanitarian aid access throughout the country, and an end to the siege of Aleppo. It passed, 122 to 13. This is what counts these days as a diplomatic coup.

Canadian Ambassador to the UN Marc-André Blanchard was pleased to claim that the resolution was already having an effect even before it was voted on, because the day before, Russia announced it was temporarily halting its bombing of Aleppo and had even offered to open corridors to allow civilians to flee. This is what counts these days as a diplomatic triumph.

The UN human rights office later announced that it had received credible reports that hundreds of men who crossed into Aleppo's regime-controlled districts had gone missing. Young men were being pulled out of the line at the corridor checkpoints. The Consultative Council in the Levant Front, one of Aleppo's main rebel groups, reported that the men had been taken to "warehouses that look more like internment camps."

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reckons that 60,000 Syrians have been starved to death, tortured to death or executed in Assad's prisons since the non-violent democratic uprising began in February, 2011. Relying on regime defectors and insiders, the Observatory has verified 14,446 deaths at a single facility, Sednaya prison, near Damascus.

And now Aleppo is undergoing what UN humanitarians spokesman Jens Laerke calls "a complete meltdown of humanity." The still-living lie with the dead in the rubble of bombed-out buildings. You can hear them screaming. Regime militias are carrying out mass executions of civilians. In one case, 11 women and 13 children were shot "on the spot." Women are committing suicide rather than face the prospect of rape and murder.

A planned evacuation of perhaps 100,000 civilians and rebel fighters from East Aleppo was heralded as a diplomatic breakthrough on Tuesday, following the abject surrender by all of Aleppo's remaining rebels – hardline Islamists and democratic patriots alike. By Wednesday morning, the Russian-Turkish understanding had fallen through, the glimmer of hope had flickered out, the barrel bombs and mortar shells were raining down on Aleppo again, and from the people, those gut-wrenching final goodbyes – "Pray for us," "I hope you can remember us" – were going out to the world again.

"Save us, people. Save us, people, world, anyone who has even a bit of humanity. We beg you, we beg you," a doctor pleaded, "the dead and wounded are in the streets and people's homes have collapsed on top of them. Save us. Save us."

But that young English teacher, Abdulkafi Al-Hamdo, knows better. He doesn't believe anymore in the United Nations. He doesn't believe anymore in the international community.

Perhaps Allah will look down in his mercy upon Aleppo, because no help is coming from us. None. This is what we have become. This is the depravity to which we have all sunk.

Aleppo has fallen.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Dec 16 - 02:41 PM

Time Period         Pro-government forces         Anti-government forces         Civilians         Grand Total (inc.unidentified)
2011
2012
2013         52,290 killed[25]
(2013: 30,239)[26]         29,083 killed[25]
(2013: 18,812)[26]         46,266 killed[27]
(2013: 22,436)[28]         2011: 7,841 killed[29]
2012: 49,294 killed[29]
2013: 73,447 killed[29]
2014         25,160 killed         32,726 killed         17,790 killed         76,021 killed[30]
2015         17,686 killed         24,010 killed         13,249 killed         55,219 killed[31]
January 2016         1,599 killed         1,687 killed         1,345 killed         4,680 killed[32]
February 2016         1,442 killed         2,209 killed         1,109 killed         4,802 killed[33]
March 2016         827 killed         1,232 killed         588 killed         2,658 killed[34]
April 2016         990 killed         1,263 killed         859 killed         3,116 killed[35]
May 2016         1,318 killed         2,669 killed         917 killed         4,927 killed[36]
June 2016         1,435 killed         2,139 killed         1,208 killed         4,823 killed[37]
July 2016         1,291 killed         1,882 killed         1,590 killed         4,794 killed[38]
August 2016         1,311 killed         1,845 killed         1,289 killed         4,475 killed[39]
September 2016         987 killed         1,302 killed         1,228 killed         3,686 killed[40]
October 2016         970 killed         1,720 killed         1,343 killed         4,527 killed[41]
November 2016         1,006 killed         1,656 killed         1,279 killed         3,954 killed[42]
Cumulative 2016 13,176 killed         19,604 killed         12,755 killed         46,442 killed

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Syrian_Civil_War

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: bobad
Date: 15 Dec 16 - 02:46 PM

Greg F, if you had any sympathy for the "Palestinians" you would be condemning those that put them in harms way and not use their plight as a platform for your Jew hatred.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: robomatic
Date: 15 Dec 16 - 02:52 PM

If only, Bubo, you could spare the same sympathy for the Palestinians as you do for the Syrians.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Dec 16 - 02:55 PM

"you would be condemning those that put them in harms way "
The people who put them in harms way in the first place are those who appeared Assad's torture, did nothing to stop his atrocities when he was filling his torture chambers with opponents and cutting down the people of Homs, sold him chemicals that enabled him to make weapons, sniper ammunition and riot control equipment to quash the protests.
Britain was asked to use their influence to stop him and seize his London property.
I have little doubt that this thread has been reopened to show what a bad lot Muslims are - judging by the inhuman and unfeeling individual who reopened it
Jim Carroll
.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: bobad
Date: 15 Dec 16 - 03:00 PM

I have little doubt that this thread has been reopened to show what a bad lot Muslims are

You would because you are a sick fuck too just like your friend Greg F.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Greg F.
Date: 15 Dec 16 - 03:18 PM

That's right, Robo- and according to your boy Trump they were celebrating in New Jersey too!

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Thompson
Date: 15 Dec 16 - 03:30 PM

Wouldn't it be possible to make a UN treaty that no country is allowed to sell arms to foreign nationals, with economy-busting fines to be paid into the UN's central fund by any country discovered doing so?

And that no country can produce more arms than it logically needs for self-defence against a credible threat.

And that no country could use arms to suppress dissent.

If countries couldn't buy arms, and could only use what they produced themselves, surely all these wars would stop?

As for the various dictators, aren't they all out for the money? Couldn't they just be put on islands full of luxuries and given lots of money to spend where they couldn't harm others?

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: robomatic
Date: 15 Dec 16 - 03:33 PM

GreKKK, you are the one using Trump tactics, not I. Those photos and celebrations were photographed at the time and place indicated, and so reported.
The Palestinians, many of whom are unhappy and miserable, would be more unhappy and more miserable almost anywhere else in the Mideast, and themselves are often dedicated to making those around them not happier, but as miserable as they are.

Bad thought patterns lead to bad actions and bad goals.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Greg F.
Date: 15 Dec 16 - 04:20 PM

The Palestinians, many of whom are unhappy and miserable, would be more unhappy and more miserable almost anywhere else in the Mideast

So therefore its OK then that the government of Israel makes them plenty unhappy and miserable where they currently are?

Jesus (or Allah - or Yahweh) wept.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: bobad
Date: 15 Dec 16 - 04:36 PM

So, nobody gives a shit about the tragedy in Syria? No condemnation of the civilian slaughter by the butcher Assad and his Russian, Iranian and Hezbollah allies? Just another thread hijack to bash Jews. Why am I not surprised?

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: robomatic
Date: 15 Dec 16 - 05:21 PM

The dead elephant in the room that nobody's talking about is the horror show in Yemen.

Yemen's been the Mideast's punching bag for generations. Back in the 60s there were stories of poison gas being used.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Dec 16 - 07:15 PM

"So, nobody gives a shit about the tragedy in Syria? "
We've been giving a shit about Syria since Homs - one of the longest threads on one political subject
Where were you pair when your two mates were saying it was ok to sell Assad sniper ammunition, or riot control equipment or chemicals for weapons?
Have you two ever complained the subject of selling arms to these monsters has been argued ?- have you ****
How about when Cameron was paying homage to the father of the Saudi regime while that regime was administering 10000 strokes for speaking out of turn.
Have you pair even acknowledged the silence of Britain and America when Assad was filling his torture chambers with victims and then disappearing them ? - you have not.
We've said our bit - silence from you.
Now there's a chance to make some Islamophobic mileage - here you are with your crocodile tears.
Care to comment on the deafening silence from the West while Assad and Russia are slaughtering fleeing refugees?
Care to comment on the fact that this conflict turned into a civil war because the west fif nothing - nope?
Didn't think so.
You haven't commented on any of these things before - you won't know - that sums up your humanitarian approach to Syria
You people are so obvious
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Dec 16 - 02:05 AM

Here is an example of a Jim Carroll lie and a total misrepresentation of fact:

"Where were you pair when your two mates were saying it was ok to sell Assad sniper ammunition, or riot control equipment or chemicals for weapons?"

The "two mates" he is referring to are myself and Keith A.

The lie is the statement where Csrroll says that I stated that "it was OK to sell Assad sniper ammunition, or riot control equipment or chemicals for weapons?"

Carroll will not come up with one whit of evidence in the shape of a direct verbatim quote of mine that says anything even remotely like that.

The misrepresentations:

1: No evidence at all that any ammunition was ever supplied by or from the UK that could have been used in Syria in the period March 2011 to the present day.

2: No recorded or reported instances have ever been put forward that any riot control equipment supplied by any UK company has ever killed anybody in Syria.

3: Definite evidence does exist in the form of the BIS investigation that shows no chemicals sold to Syria between 2004 and 2010 were ever used to manufacture chemical weapons

Most of Jim Carroll's posts are fiction based, biased, bigoted, racist drivel the content of which does not even stand up to even cursory common sense or logical scrutiny let alone detailed critical examination.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Dec 16 - 08:10 AM

What an imposing list of distortions and dishonesty
1   You have deined the existence of the shipment - have said it was not licenced, have said the licence was rescinded, have said that it was never sent, have said that it was sent too early to have been used, have said it was the wrong size to be used by the army   
2   "No recorded or reported instances have ever been put forward that any riot control equipment supplied by any UK company has ever killed anybody in Syria."
No claim has ever been put forward that they have ever killed anybody
The fact that they were sent to suppress opposition makes them evils shipments
3 Cemichals were sold to Syria that were capable of being used in weapons manufacture
"The Government was accused of "breathtaking laxity" in its arms controls last night after it emerged that officials authorised the export to Syria of two chemicals capable of being used to make a nerve agent such as sarin a year ago.
The Business Secretary, Vince Cable, will today be asked by MPs to explain why a British company was granted export licences for the dual-use substances for six months in 2012 while Syria's civil war was raging and concern was rife that the regime could use chemical weapons on its own people. The disclosure of the licences for potassium fluoride and sodium fluoride, which can both be used as precursor chemicals in the manufacture of nerve gas, came as the US Secretary of State John Kerry said the United States had evidence that sarin gas was used in last month's atrocity in Damascus."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/revealed-uk-government-let-british-company-export-nerve-gas-chemicals-to-syria-8793642.html
All this can be confirmed on the Homs Horror thread - lesson - never say in public what you are going to deny later
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Dec 16 - 08:37 AM

All that can clearly be learned from the Homs Horror thread is that you are a lying.

Contained in this thread:

Subject: RE: BS: Homs horror
From: Teribus - PM
Date: 20 Mar 12 - 07:06 PM

Ah, so in short, you have no proof at all that the British Government sold anything to the Assad regime in Syria. It was just something you read in a newspaper, and having read the passage you misunderstood it and got it all wrong - something that I bet is not too unusual for you.

Subject: RE: BS: Homs horror
From: Jim Carroll - PM
Date: 21 Mar 12 - 07:14 AM

"WHO HAS SUPPLIED NOTHING TO SYRIA!" (Teribus from a previous post)
Except the documented small arms ammunition - as you say, sniper bullets
Nothing else new then?

Finally towards the end of the thread we get the admission from Jim:

Subject: RE: BS: Homs horror
From: Jim Carroll - PM
Date: 22 Mar 12 - 07:18 AM

"The total of my evidence is that Britain licensed an order of small arms ammunition.......

"never say in public what you are going to deny later Jim Carroll".

What you were originally arguing there Jim Carroll was that the ammunition was supplied by the British Government and sent to Syria and that is a barefaced lie. One that you were pulled up on.

Still waiting for the post of mine where I deny that any export licence was ever granted - But like all your idiotic ill-informed assertions you aren't going to find any such post to back them up.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: bobad
Date: 16 Dec 16 - 08:50 AM

It defies belief the way Carroll distorts reality by attempting to make it look like the UK is somehow responsible for the genocide being perpetrated by the butcher Assad and his henchmen Russia, Iran and Hezbollah. When facts don't support your ideology use lies and distortion. We're on to you.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Dec 16 - 08:56 AM

Working from the bottom of your 80-odd postings defending the British sales of ammunition and equipment, this is a selection of around a dozen
By this time you had returned to there being no proof of a licence for ammunition being issued, having gone through all sorts of excuses
The confusion of whether the shipment was ammunition or sniper rifles arose from Keith's:

"11 Feb 12 - 09:21 AM
But why do you ONLY criticise Britain?
Not Russia.
Not China.
Not Syria.
Britain is hardly in the same league.
You have clearly been searching vigorously, but all you have come up with is some sniper rifles.

His mistake, not mine, though you were more than happy to claim it was my suggestion.
I'll take this as far as I have with your abusive postings, if that is what you wish – that seems to have done the trick – you made plenty more arrogant postings on that thread and there are several more you contributed to with your appeasement of sales of chemicals and equipment to this monster.
I do like your suggestion that Assad will be defeated – he's on our side now!!
Jim Carroll

21 Feb 12 - 11:59 AM
18: In mid-December Der Spiegel crew managed to smuggle themself inside the city of Homs where they witnesses Baba Amr district being completely under control of FSA soldiers with checkpoints erected at the edge of the district. According to local FSA commander Shabeeha and army snipers were positioned in approximately 200 places in Homs and were shooting on everything that moved in designated zones like Cairo street which runs through the center of the city.
There ya go "Christmas" - First mention of snipers shooting at people around the 18th December 2011 a good two years after some private individual received a licence to sell 7.62 NATO ammo to Syria. Now all you have to do is provide evidence that people shot by these snipers were armed with Austrian Steyr SSG69 rifles firing ammunition (Oh sorry, that should be "firing arms") supplied two years previously by an arms dealer based in Britain (i.e. NOT the British Government).

19: 24th to 27th December 61 people killed by artillery and tank fire - not by snipers - now tell us Jim-Lad who sold Assad the tanks and the artillery because so far they seem to have done the most damage.

20: Same old same old throughout January and February with tanks and artillery doing their worst. Assad's boys killing journalists did not help.

21 Feb 12 - 12:13 PM
Here's one for you "Christmas"
Place: Homs
Date 27th December, 2011
"Some 70,000 protests gathered in central Homs during the official visit of Arab League observer mission and were later dispersed by tear gas."
Number of demonstrators killed = ZERO"

21 Feb 12 - 04:30 PM
"You have proposed sending riot weapons to a murderous dictator,"
No I do not think anyone has done that. They have merely pointed out that it is better to confront a demonstration with non-lethal means than with tanks and artillery as Assad has done. But just to get things perfectly clear here, the murderous dictator we are talking about is Bashar al Assad of Syria, the same man and regime that supplies and supports Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza
"You have consistently denied documented evidence of weapons supplied by Britain"
Documented "evidence"?? What documented "evidence"? Newspaper articles that when you actually read them show nothing of the kind.
Don't ever sit on a jury "Christmas" whoever the accused was would be well and truly stuffed - you would not know "evidence" if it jumped up and bit you.

24 Feb 12 - 01:17 PM
So Jim-Lad,
As far as your original contention that Syrian civilians were being "slaughtered" by British weapons in Homs, what we have so far is this:
1: Britain has sold no weapons to Syria
2: The licence issued to a private arms dealer in 2009 to sell small arms ammunition (or small arms "arms", as you prefer it) was revoked in good time and there is no evidence that ANY ammunition was ever delivered at all.
3: The vast bulk of those killed in Syria since 6th May 2011 have been killed by shells fired from tanks, artillery, mortar rounds, RPG-7s and small arms predominantly AK-47 Assault Rifles. Most of which are supplied by Russia or China.
As to why the UN is reluctant to act? There can be no UN Security Council Resolution to mandate action as happened in the case of Libya due to Russian and Chinese use of their veto powers.
End result Assad and his regime will collapse, but it will be a long and bloody struggle to finally get what the Syrian people want.

25 Feb 12 - 11:18 AM
Ammunition, Christmas, small arms ammunition.
The "sniper" bullets were your spin not mine, because they are not "sniper" rounds at all just standard rifle ammunition. So if they are in your eyes classified as "sniper" bullets then ALL bullets are "sniper" bullets - fits in nicely with your equally ludicrous "small arms arms" thing.
"White Phosphorus"?? According to the Convention on certain Conventional Weapons and the Chemical Weapons Convention - neither list White Phosphorus as a Chemical Weapon - I will take their word for it (After all just who the fuck is Jim Carroll to tell the world anything)
"Agent Orange" - classified as a defoliant not a Chemical Weapon.
"they are not even being "slaughtered" by British ammunition."
Where is your proof that they are being slaughtered by British ammunition - you have offered nothing apart from newspaper articles referring to the fact that a licence had been granted, not that anything had actually been sold, or delivered.

25 Feb 12 - 01:35 PM
"It really doesnt matter how long the ammunition sold to Syria lasted"
F''kin well does if you are trying to tell us that a small amount of ammunition that might have been "bought" two years ago is currently being used to kill people today when it was sold to a country whose army is 220,000 strong.
So hidden in amongst all that froth:
NO WEAPONS SOLD TO SYRIA BY BRITAIN
NO PROOF WHATSOEVER THAT BULLETS REPORTEDLY SOLD SUBJECT TO A BRITISH EXPORT LICENCE WERE EVER DELIVERED
NO PROOF WHATSOEVER THAT THAT AMMUNITION IS CURRENTLY BEING USED TO KILL ANYONE IN HOMS

18 Mar 12 - 04:10 AM
Beyond mentioning and quoting a newspaper article you have produced no "evidence" whatsoever.
Do you faithfully believe everything you read in the Daily Mail Christmas - or just the bits you can use to feed your bias and bigotry?
Please quote where I have stated they were "sniper bullets/sniper rounds" - I think I can go back through my posts to this thread and find that I stated the exact opposite - i.e. stating that the 7.62 x 51mm is standard NATO ammunition that can be fired by the Steyr, but the Russian 7.62 x 54mm is a round specifically loaded for use in their sniper rifles.
1: The British Government has sold no weapons to Syria
2: That the 154 export licences issued by the British Government for anything being exported to Syria were all revoked in line with EU rules
3: There are no records of sale or delivery of the ammunition mentioned in your Daily Mail article
4: It was pointed out that the only type of ammunition that Syria could use fitted one type of rifle and the sale (If it ever took place) was for a tiny amount of ammunition and it pre-dated the Arab Spring type demonstrations in Syria by two years.



20 Mar 12 - 12:05 PM
Not a fact at all Christmas, my little plumb pudding. I can certainly find no record of any sales or arms or ammunition by the British Government to the Assad Regime in Syria.

20 Mar 12 - 07:06 PM
Ah, so in short, you have no proof at all that the British Government sold anything to the Assad regime in Syria. It was just something you read in a newspaper, and having read the passage you misunderstood it and got it all wrong - something that I bet is not too unusual for you.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Dec 16 - 10:05 AM

"It defies belief the way Carroll distorts reality by attempting to make it look like the UK is somehow responsible for the genocide "
The World -- not just Britain - the world just stood by and watches while the citizens of Homs were being slaughtered on a daily basis - just as they are doing while the fleeing citizens of Aleppo are being used for target practice by our allies, Russia and Assad's troops.
Britain sold equipment that that was used to suppress Arab Spring protests - not just to Syria, but to whoever wished to but it
WE sold chemicals which could be used to make chemical weapons - and was reprimanded for it by the world
There is no doubt that these sales took place any more than there is any doubt that such sales assist despots to suppress their subjects.
Ther is no reason that they should not have taken place; Export Minister freely admitted that Britain will sell arms and equipment to whoever will buy them, no matter what their human rights record.
On the eve of the Arab Spring Protests, David Cameron launched a massive arms sale aimed at countries like Saudi Arabia and Bahrain.
The British Army trained Gaddafi's son to take over when his father died, despite naming Libya a despotic state.
This shitty policy kills and suppresses poor people - it is evil and those who support it are evil
To whoever it may concern - please feel free recognise yourself in this description
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Dec 16 - 12:12 PM

Read your post Jim Carroll - 16 Dec 16 - 08:56 AM


Then read this:

Jim Carroll - 25 Nov 16 - 12:42 PM

You lied when you said you had not denied that a licence had been issued

Now does the following read as if I am denying that an export licence had been issued:

21 Feb 12 - 11:59 AM
18: First mention of snipers shooting at people around the 18th December 2011 a good two years after some private individual received a licence to sell 7.62 NATO ammo to Syria.

How about this "example" put up by yourself:

24 Feb 12 - 01:17 PM
So Jim-Lad,
As far as your original contention that Syrian civilians were being "slaughtered" by British weapons in Homs, what we have so far is this:
1: Britain has sold no weapons to Syria
2: The licence issued to a private arms dealer in 2009 to sell small arms ammunition (or small arms "arms", as you prefer it) was revoked in good time and there is no evidence that ANY ammunition was ever delivered at all.

Sound like a denial that any licence had been issued to you.

AND AGAIN Jim:

25 Feb 12 - 11:18 AM

Where is your proof that they are being slaughtered by British ammunition - you have offered nothing apart from newspaper articles referring to the fact that a licence had been granted, not that anything had actually been sold, or delivered.

WHOOPS and again Jim:
25 Feb 12 - 01:35 PM

So hidden in amongst all that froth:
NO WEAPONS SOLD TO SYRIA BY BRITAIN
NO PROOF WHATSOEVER THAT BULLETS REPORTEDLY SOLD SUBJECT TO A BRITISH EXPORT LICENCE WERE EVER DELIVERED

AND THIS:

18 Mar 12 - 04:10 AM

1: The British Government has sold no weapons to Syria
2: That the 154 export licences issued by the British Government for anything being exported to Syria were all revoked in line with EU rules
3: There are no records of sale or delivery of the ammunition mentioned in your Daily Mail article

Thank you very much indeed Jim for proving so conclusively that at no time at all have I ever denied that an export licence was issued - counter to your claim that I had.

Tell me do you ever actually read what you post, the links you provide or the articles you refer to? Certainly doesn't look like it.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Dec 16 - 12:47 PM

I started from the bottom of the thread (more convenient
Your first reaction was to deny the licence had been issued - which you returned to aon the last posting "Ah, so in short, you have no proof at all that the British Government sold anything to the Assad regime in Syria. It was just something you read in a newspaper, and having read the passage you misunderstood it and got it all wrong - something that I bet is not too unusual for you.
And again:
NO PROOF WHATSOEVER THAT BULLETS REPORTEDLY SOLD SUBJECT TO A BRITISH EXPORT LICENCE WERE EVER DELIVERED
Having denied the licence, you said they were never delivered, you then invented a private dealer (no proof provided) The licence issued to a private arms dealer in 2009 to sell small arms ammunition (or small arms "arms", as you prefer it) was revoked in good time and there is no evidence that ANY ammunition was ever delivered at all.
No proof of next - doesn't mention ammo , so not sure whether you are talking about no licence, a revoked licence, no delivery, a private buyer   putting up a smokescreen - as you often do
hat the 154 export licences issued by the British Government for anything being exported to Syria were all revoked in line with EU rules
Now - do we have a licence - do we have a private buyer or is your denial that there is no proof of a licence the one you are sticking with?
This is from a handful of your last postings on thes subject - it gets murkier as it goes on - only four contradictions so far.
Havent got to "the shipment was delivered far too early to make a difference" or they were the wrog size (no mention on the size of ammunition in the newspaper information (which you have dismissed as lies)
By then, you had appeared to have accepted that a delivery was made, but to a rivate buyer and the ammo sent was useless.
Any chance of providing an encrypted guide to your arguments - it was impenitrable then, and it is no clearer now?
For fucks sake - the statements you have just put up contradict yourself - and I haven't started on the rest of them yet.
Dig away!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Dec 16 - 01:20 PM

Summing up - we have a licence that was invented by the press and later rescinded, but was issued but the order was never fulfilled but was for ammunition that was sent to a private buyer too early to be used on the streets of Homs
The unspecified ammunition that was/wasn't ordered and sent/not sent was the wrong size to be used by the Syrian army snipers anyway
Have I missed anything?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Dec 16 - 01:23 PM

Isn't the title of this thread a wonderful description of this argument?
PERHAPS WE CAN USE THIS TO ENCRYPT IT!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Dec 16 - 03:01 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/16/middleeast/syria-aleppo-war-crimes-claim/index.html

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: bobad
Date: 16 Dec 16 - 06:05 PM

Nothing of the kind forthcoming from your boy Trump and his Cabinet of deplorables, Bubo

What about your boy David Duke Smeg, what's his stand does he blame it on the Jews?

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: bobad
Date: 16 Dec 16 - 07:32 PM

Ah, ha, ha Smeg, total bullshit - something you are intimately familiar with as it is your stock-in-trade.

Here's a link to your hero David Duke's web site - we see from it where you get your information about Jews: David Duke.com For Human Freedom and Diversity.....lol!

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: bobad
Date: 16 Dec 16 - 08:15 PM

I can dissemble as well as you can Smeg - you keep it up and I will match you and go you one better.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Dec 16 - 02:14 AM

Jim Carroll - 16 Dec 16 - 12:47 PM

"I started from the bottom of the thread (more convenient
Your first reaction was to deny the licence had been issued"

Really?? Aw shucks Jim, pity you just couldn't find any post of mine where I actually say that. But to the "example you shove to the fore:

"Ah, so in short, you have no proof at all that the British Government sold anything to the Assad regime in Syria. It was just something you read in a newspaper, and having read the passage you misunderstood it and got it all wrong - something that I bet is not too unusual for you." - Teribus

Now where in that quoted passage of mine do I mention the word "licence" let alone state that no licence was ever issued? Tell me Jim because I've looked and I've looked but I just cannot find it. Maybe what I said towards the end of that quote is perfectly correct - i.e. having read the passage you misunderstood it and got it all wrong.

What I did say from the outset was to counter your baseless and ridiculous claim that British weapons, supplied by the British Government were killing Syrian civilians in Homs - in the passage quoted above I clearly state that "you have no proof at all that the British Government sold anything to the Assad regime in Syria". That statement of mine in relation to weapons and ammunition is perfectly true. The only thing the British Government did do was issue an export licence to a private enterprise sometime in 2009 for a minute quantity of 7.62x51mm Standard NATO ammunition. There has never been any proof at all that this sale went through, or that the ammunition was delivered - if there had been any proof you would have come up with it - this you have singularly failed to do. By 2010 ALL export licences covering exports to Syria had been revoked (Simple matter of documented record). The unrest started in Syria in March 2011 and the killings in Homs referred to in the thread began with the Syrian Army's assault on Homs in February 2012.

Finally when pressed you come out with:

Subject: RE: BS: Homs horror
From: Jim Carroll - PM
Date: 22 Mar 12 - 07:18 AM

"The total of my evidence is that Britain licensed an order of small arms ammunition"

So you lied and deliberately sought to misrepresent on the Homs Horror thread when you claimed that British weapons were killing Syrian civilians - something which by your own admission was untrue.

And you lied again when you claimed that I had denied that an export licence had been granted. That lie you have clearly exposed yourself by quoting a number of my own posts to that thread in the period February and March 2012 where I clearly acknowledge and refer to the export licence(s) granted.

You have clearly and conclusively been caught out in two lies, gross misrepresentation and an untrue and baseless accusation. You are in a hole my advice would be stop digging and refrain from mentioning the topic ever again.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Dec 16 - 02:35 AM

Jim Carroll - 16 Dec 16 - 01:20 PM

"Summing up - we have a licence that was invented by the press and later rescinded, but was issued but the order was never fulfilled but was for ammunition that was sent to a private buyer too early to be used on the streets of Homs"

"Licence invented by the press" - Where have I stated that, or is that just more of YOUR "made-up-shit"? - Another Jim Carroll baseless accusation.

All export licences issued by the Department for International Trade covering ALL exports to Syria were revoked in October 2010 - FACT.

There is no proof or evidence that any ammunition was ever sent to Syria.

Intrigued by this bit though Jim - as it conclusively does prove that you do not really understand anything that is clearly written - "ammunition that was sent to a private buyer too early to be used on the streets of Homs"

Points related to the above:
1: A private individual who deals in arms and ammunition applied to the British Government for an export licence to SELL £30,000 worth of standard NATO 7.62x51mm ammunition to the Syrian Government.

2: I doubt very much if Bashar al-Assad and the Ba'ath regime in Syria would allow any private citizen in Syria to buy £30,000 worth of small arms ammunition.

You really do not have a clue do you? Stick to the 1954 definition of what is a "Folk Song", hero worship of Ewan MacColl and the songs of Walter Pardon - you're on safe ground there.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Dec 16 - 04:45 AM

If you think I'm going to reopen the Homs horror debate again – think again – I've bought all my Christmas presents this year
You've made your case - and it's shown itself not to hold water.
Out of 12 of your postings you've established that a licence that was invented by the press and later rescinded, but was issued but the order was never fulfilled but was for ammunition that was sent to a private buyer too early to be used on the streets of Homs
The unspecified ammunition that was/wasn't ordered and sent/not sent was the wrong size to be used by the Syrian army snipers anyway
That was out of only twelve of your postings – you made around four times more on "Horror", and continued inventing excuses on a couple more threads, trying to recoup your losses.
If it's OK with you, we'll leave it there – that fits under the tree nicely without overcrowding it.
Have a good one – d'you hear
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Dec 16 - 05:14 AM

I knew I'd forgotten something - this gem as an excuse for selling Assad equipment - they didn't know he was a baddie:
"Tell me Jim where was this Government crystal ball with it's two year look-ahead in 2006? Must have been in for a service eh? "
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Dec 16 - 05:56 AM

"Out of 12 of your postings you've established that a licence that was invented by the press and later rescinded, but was issued but the order was never fulfilled but was for ammunition that was sent to a private buyer too early to be used on the streets of Homs" - Jim Carroll's delusional "take on things"

Now then show me where I have stated any of that.

This part of your delusional wittering is a bit of a contradiction isn't it:

If I had said that the export licence was an "invention of the press" how could it ever be "rescinded"

By the way Jim it is the person selling the goods that requires an export licence NOT the Government, Organisation, Company or person abroad purchasing the goods, the latter three would have to apply to their own Government for an Import Licence. I would have thought that that have been blatantly obvious to a sophisticated man of the world such as yourself, but possibly not to someone who is completely clueless.

£30,000 buys roughly 110,000 rounds and at the time we are talking about, 2009, the Syrian Army numbered ~220,000. Accepting the impossible that Standard NATO 7.62x51mm rounds could be of any use in Russian weapons firing 7.62x39mm ammunition that would mean there would be one bullet between every two soldiers in the Syrian Army wouldn't it Jim? Now one bullet between every two soldiers in the Syrian Army would last them how long Jim - You obviously seem to think three years - as stated delusional, illogical nonsense.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Dec 16 - 06:54 AM

"Now then show me where I have stated any of that."
Just have - they are exactly what you said inthe postings I found and you drew attention to.
"If I had said that the export licence was an "invention of the press" how could it ever be "rescinded""
Beyond me, but you did - you offered all these excuses throughout the Homs Horror thread, abandoning one, going on to another and then going back to the ones you left
That is the point - you put up over half a dozen contradictory excuses.
Go tell us which of thiose dated ones I put up you didn't post

on second thoughts - don't bother - now your just a bore
And your back to weapon size - where the *** has anybody stated the size of the licenced ammunition apart from you?
You really are amess
Jim Carroll
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Dec 16 - 11:24 AM

Only thing is Jim I have never denied that an export licence for £30,000 worth of small arms ammunition was issued - you said that I had - Jim Carroll "made-up-shit" lie #2 - Jim Carroll "made-up-shit" lie #1 being that Syrian civilians in Homs were being killed by weapons supplied to the Assad regime by the British Government. Then you changed your story to that I had said that the licence was "invented" by the press - only thing wrong with that is that I never said anything of the sort - Jim Carroll "made-up-shit" lie #3.

Right then Jim with your vast experience and knowledge of small arms and ammunition could you tell us what ammunition subject to British export licence could possibly have been offered for sale to Bashir al-Assad's regime? I'm all ears, after all you do not only believe that the ammunition was sold, you also believe that it was despatched, received and used by snipers in Homs to kill Syrian civilians - NOW where is your evidence to support your claim that any of that actually happened.

I for one am not holding my breath, because you have absolutely nothing to substantiate your claims, which is par for the course for you as always.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: robomatic
Date: 19 Dec 16 - 03:57 PM

Properly speaking, Mosul is in Iraq but I didn't want to start a new thread

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Donuel
Date: 20 Dec 16 - 10:53 AM

Aleppo the 5,000 year old biblical city is where Abraham grazed sheep, where Alexander the Great built monuments and where Shakespeare made mention of Aleppo twice.

Its history makes its genocide all the worse. Because the US was so deceived and war weary the King and mercenaries were left alone to wage war upon this country driven to the cities due to constant drought and crop failure.

In this age it is the first of many such tragedies.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 03:14 PM

https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/12/21/israel-to-expand-medical-assistance-for-syrian-refugees/

Israel has been treating and helping Syrian refugees since 2011.
Sponsored

"We're prepared to take in wounded women and children, and also men if they are not combatants ... bring them to Israel, take care of them in our hospitals, as we've done with thousands of Syrian civilians," Netanyahu said at a meeting with foreign reporters in Jerusalem."

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 05:54 PM

And then there's the Palestinian civilians, who Bibi cheerfully consigns to oblivion.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 06:53 PM

"Only thing is Jim I have never denied that an export licence for £30,000 worth of small arms ammunition was issued "
you really are finished on this one - you have had all the information - complete with documented evidence, so, as all your claims have cpme without anything other than denials - they are no more than the opinions of a cyber-bully - over and out.
Go and sneak up and stab another thread in the back
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: bobad
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 06:58 PM

And then there's the Palestinian civilians, who Bibi cheerfully consigns to oblivion.

And then there's the Palestinian civilians, who Hamas cheerfully consigns to oblivion.

Fixed!

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 03:34 AM

Jim Carroll - 21 Dec 16 - 06:53 PM

"you have had all the information - complete with documented evidence"

Information relating to what Jim? What "documented evidence"? The following was stated quite categorically by you wasn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Homs horror
From: Jim Carroll - PM
Date: 22 Mar 12 - 07:18 AM

"The total of my evidence is that Britain licensed an order of small arms ammunition.......

And you have no evidence at all of me ever having denied that that licence was issued.

You have lost the plot on this matter so comprehensively now Jim that you no longer have the foggiest clue what point you are arguing or trying to make.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 04:16 AM

""The total of my evidence is that Britain licensed an order of small arms ammunition.......
And that is the total evidence of YOUR information, it is all we both have
Out of which you have concluded (can't be bothered to do this in order any more).
The licence doesn't exist - don't believe everything you read in the press
It does exist but it was rescinded
It was issued but the shipment was never sent
It was sent far too early to be used in the fighting
It was sold to a private buyer
It was for sporting equipment
The ammunition was the wrong size to be used in Syrian weapons
And finally back to:
There is no evidence that a licence ever existed
The ammunition was the wrong size
Back on La Ronde - and so on, ad infinitum
You have now added to your contradictory makkie-ups that you never challenged the existence of the licencedenied that I have put up your saying the licence never existed AND I SHOULDN'T BELIEVE EVERYTHING IN THE PRESS.
If you haven't denied it, what should I not believe in the press?
Not bad for The total of my evidence is that Britain licensed an order of small arms ammunition.......
You are a bigger joke than your History Man mate - at least he sticks to one story - you have given over half a dozen here.
The licence for sniper ammunition exists - end of story - all the other excuses underline that you make things up on the spot, whether they relate to one another or are contradictory.
You have been crudely and ineptly making up a whole string of excuses for the sale of equipment to a mass murderer
Also sold by Britain was riot control equipment, armoured cars, tear gas and water cannon which we know to have ben used on the streets to quell demonstrators during the Arab Spring Protests BEFORE THIS SQUALID AFFAR BECAME A CIVIL WAR
Britain has been condemned world wide for selling CHEMICALS to this monster that could have been used to produce his stockpile of foul weapons.
The bottom line is that Britain sells weapons to whoever will buy them
End of...
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: bobad
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 09:53 AM

After nearly half a million Syrian deaths and the uprooting of roughly 11 million people, the horror and obscenity reached a kind of crescendo last week when Aleppo, Syria's last rebel stronghold, finally imploded in a mayhem of atrocities and war crimes. Aleppo fell under the weight of a starvation siege, Russian jet fighters, Hezbollah militiamen, Iranian Quds Force thugs and Bashar Al-Assad's barrel bombers.

Savagery triumphed, but even against the abject humiliation of the United Nations and the pathetic, bawling impotence of the United States of America, one must keep up appearances. There are comforting delusions to attend to, and quite a few of us appear to be hysterically possessed of a desperate need to be told there was absolutely nothing we could have done to stop it.

Terry Glavin: It's not just Aleppo we've murdered. It's truth

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 10:08 AM

Shame on you, bobad. You can't say such things about the US President ( unless he is a Republican).

" The UN Security Council could have stopped the bloodshed, but it would not, because the warmongering Russian veto-holders wouldn't let it. The UN General Assembly could have overridden the Security Council by invoking the 1950 "Uniting for Peace" Resolution 377A, but it would not do so, on account of excuses likely as numerous as the General Assembly's 193 member states.

United States President Barack Obama could have made some use of himself on behalf of the Syrian people, but he chose not to. An American-led no-fly zone over Syria, enforced by the 28-member NATO alliance, is not some small thing that even Vladimir Putin could have ignored. Obama could have stood up to Iran, but he didn't because he didn't want to. What he wanted instead was his legacy nuclear-deal rapprochement with the ayatollahs in Tehran, a cascading failure that may not survive even the tyrant-admiring president-elect, Donald Trump. The main reason all those Syrians had to die was that Obama didn't want to do anything to hurt the ayatollahs' feelings.

It's painful, facing up to the reality that the most stylish and charming American president since John F. Kennedy, the Chicago boy with such gifts of soaring oratory, the president who spent eight years dancing on the Ellen Degeneres Show and chumming around with Hollywood's hottest stars, might have spent most of his time in the Oval Office falling-down drunk on the elixir of his own glamorous, impeccable image."

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: bobad
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 10:25 AM

As much as I admire President Obama for the many things he got right I can't say the same for his two abject failures, the Iran nuclear deal and Syria.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 10:33 AM

The U.N. CFBruce? You mean that bunch of anti-semitic totalitarian jack-booted thugs that are always picking on Israel for no reason??

By the way, what's the source for your latest right-wing screed?

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: bobad
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 10:48 AM

You mean that bunch of anti-semitic totalitarian jack-booted thugs that are always picking on Israel for no reason??

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon Admits UN Biased Against Israel

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 10:49 AM

Greggie,

Try looking at the clickey for the previous post.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 10:51 AM

Terry Glavin: It's not just Aleppo we've murdered. It's truth

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 12:11 PM

It's not just Aleppo we've murdered. It's truth

I'm assumng you meant to include yourself in the "we",Bruce.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 12:17 PM

The article implies that "We" represents all of humanity- so you are off the hook.