BS: chemical weapons in Syria

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Sep 16 - 12:01 PM

Jim Carroll - 01 Sep 16 - 08:22 AM

"Simple then Carroll give us an example of one of those lies?"
Give us an example of...."

There you go folks - typical Carroll evasion Happens every time.

He makes a baseless allegation and then runs for cover behind a screen of bluster and evasion when asked to substantiate his claim.

You said I was an inveterate liar Carroll - your contention - prove it!

"Your series of contradictory and unconnected excuses, made up as the argument progressed and presented as "facts" are lies - they were not facts - they were made up by you.
As I said - you are a liar."

Judge for yourselves folks:

I stated that standard NATO 7.62x51mm ammunition would of no use whatsoever for any weapon made to fire Russian/Soviet 7.62x39mm rounds.

Link 1
NATO 7.62mm Round

Link 2
Russian 7.62mm Round

Link 3
0.308" standing beside Russian 7.62x39mm Round

The 0.308" round is identical to Standard NATO 7.62x51mm. Simply put a weapon designed and made to chamber and fire a round that is 56mm long cannot chamber or fire a round that is 71.1mm in length. Still say that I am making this up Carroll?

Link 4
Syrian Army Equipment

"I link to everything I claim"

No Jim you don't, you only think that you do - current example was on the thread where you stated that Sir Richard Branson was a "Tax Dodger", so you provided a link "Straight from the horse's mouth" or words to that effect - but it did not state that Sir Richard Branson was a tax dodger did it, and it made no reference at all to any prosecution for tax evasion in the 1970s as you implied in your post. Caught out again Carroll.

"Syria was sold material capable of producing nerve gas - Assad used nerve gas on hos own people - the two facts are inseparable."

Try this then Jim:

Syria was sold material capable of producing toothpaste - The companies who purchased that material manufactured the quantity of toothpaste commensurate with deliveries from the UK over six years (Checked by BIS) - Syrians brush their teeth - those three facts are inseparable.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Sep 16 - 08:22 AM

"Simple then Carroll give us an example of one of those lies?"
Give us an example of somebody linking to Syrian ammunition - I have never done so, nor has anybody else - you claimed we had
I linked only to the reports of the sales being made
Your series of contradictory and unconnected excuses, made up as the argument progressed and presented as "facts" are lies - they were not facts - they were made up by you.
As I said - you are a liar.
I link to everything I claim - you refuse to do so, arrogantly expecting your word
Nerve gas components sold to Syria equate with Syria's ability to manufacturing nerve gas - you argument is simply the use of semantics.
Syria was sold material capable of producing nerve gas - Assad used nerve gas on hos own people - the two facts are inseparable.
I linked to the statements to show there was no prevarication
,YOU STILL REFUSE TO LINK TO ANYTHING YOU CLAIM
Game over - unless uyou want to tell us about the "democratic" firsdt half of the 19th century, or Kitchener, themagnificent leader, ot "brainwashed Ireland".... but I'm quite sure you don't
Jim Carroll
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Sep 16 - 07:51 AM

"you are an inveterate liar" - Jim Carroll

Simple then Carroll give us an example of one of those lies?

You have been asked to often enough and to date have always failed to come up with so much as a single example - this time will be no different.

"It is also a statement of fact that the shit that was sold is also usable in the manufacture of chemical weapons"

Sorry Jim but what you shouted to the world in multi-colour was that Nerve Gas had been sold - you were even daft enough to ask me to agree with you that nerve gas had been sold to Syria by the UK.

Now the following was not the opinion of Keith A it was lifted directly from the link that you provided:

"nerve gas components" Does not equate to Nerve Gas - unless of course you have proof which you don't so your, "UK has sold nerve gas to Syria", is an example of Jim Carroll "Made-Up-Shit".

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Sep 16 - 07:12 AM

It is also a statement of fact that the shit that was sold is also usable in the manufacture of chemical weapons

Yes, and they put it in our drinking water here too.

You stated,
"CONFIRMATION of SALE + NERVE GAS to SYRIA "

That was a lie Jim.
More of your made up shit.

We supplied a harmless substance to a toothpaste factory!
Syria is armed by your old comrades Russia, China and Iran. Not Britain.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Sep 16 - 06:19 AM

"It is just a statement of fact."
It is also a statement of fact that the shit that was sold is also usable in the manufacture of chemical weapons
Equally, it is a statement of fact that the sale was internationally condemned at the time Assad was exposed as having used chemical weapons
You don't give monsters the wherewithal to make weapons, any more than you give children knives to play with because they are designed for cuting up food.
Your repeating the claim of the arms people that they never sold the material puts you where to are - State apologist nodding dogs - what the **** else are they going to say?
I ask again - what are you people on?
I don't think I've ever been happier to see an old argument reopened, as I am this one.
What a pair of tossers you two are.
Have a good day now - I certainly am.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Sep 16 - 06:06 AM

,i>"Your link only refers to "components" of nerve gas which happen also to be components for toothpaste."
See what I mean

No.
It is just a statement of fact.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Sep 16 - 05:10 AM

Sorry, got that wrong
Should read Made up UNCORROBORATED shit
"At no time have I ever needed to Carroll, "
Do you not know how meglomanic that statement is.
At no time have you ore anybody produced the information you claim, and nevt to the shambolic list of arguments you have put up you are as believeble as Alice in Wonderland
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Sep 16 - 04:53 AM

"At no time have I ever needed to Carroll"
To be believed you have - you are an inveterate liar
You give more "facts" that you refuse to provide proof for
Keith gives a denial
What are you people on?
Your own lies expose you for what you are.
Made up shit
"Your link only refers to "components" of nerve gas which happen also to be components for toothpaste."
See what I mean
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Sep 16 - 03:56 AM

Jim Carroll - 31 Aug 16 - 02:57 PM

you have at no time linked to it and I never gave it - is one of yr 'makie-ups'

You have never shown that the ammunition you claim is used by the snipers is as you said - you don't do that sort of thing.

Nor have you ever shown that they only use one type of weapon.

Can we now assume that sales of ammunition were made - also sales of nerve gas?

1 - Links: At no time have I ever needed to Carroll, the description of the ammunition and the limiting value of the licence were given in links that you yourself provided plus links provided by others. Your trouble is that you do not read the links you provide or you do not understand what those links say. You are the only person on this forum to blatantly "Make-Up-Shit" - you've been caught out doing so on numerous occasions.

2 - Ammunition Types: I most certainly have provided links that clearly show the 12mm difference between Russian and NATO 7.62mm rounds.

3 - Syrian Armed Forces Military Equipment: I have also provided links to show what weaponry the Syrian Armed Forces use.

4: - Sale of Ammunition: No we cannot assume those sales went through, you stated that they had so it is up to you to prove it - you've had four years and have been unable to come up with anything, apart from a report in a newspaper that an export licence was granted. Taking other factors of a more practical nature into account it would be more probable to assume that no sale was ever completed - I mean really who on earth would purchase ammunition that they could not possibly use?

5 - Sales of Nerve Gas: There have been no sales of nerve gas, the link you provided merely stated that components that could be used were exported to Syria in a six year period between 2004 and 2010. BIS investigated the exports comparing the quantities of sodium fluoride exported to the amounts of toothpaste manufactured and found that they matched, thereby making it highly unlikely that any of the sodium fluoride had been diverted for use in any chemical weapons programme.

Jim Carroll - 31 Aug 16 - 01:06 PM

Doesn't surprise me at all - the AI rifle is the best in the world, but any such rifle in Syria today most likely were brought into the country by the Russians who have been shipping weapons and ammunition to Assad for years {Reportedly two Freighter loads per month}. Still doesn't help you with the ammunition you were on about though Jom the Accuracy International AW range fires 0.338 Lapua Magnum round NOT Standard NATO 7.62x51mm

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Aug 16 - 07:49 PM

Jim,
The Israelis have not faced the law on their behavior in Gaza - the Americans have made sure of that.

I have explained the law to you.
If some maniacal, racist murderers keep attempting to commit atrocities on your people you can and should strike back at them even if they compound their crimes by hiding among their own civilians.
Israel obeyed all the provisos for such strikes.

NOW ISN'T THIS INTERESTING? (Link)

""We sell our rifles to more than sixty markets but we've never sold to Syria, and we haven't sold any rifles directly to Russia for at least 15 years."
A spokesman for BIS said: "The UK has not granted export licences for sniper rifles to Syria since 1999 and was instrumental in bringing about EU sanctions against Russia in July last year. Existing licences that were not consistent with the sanctions were revoked and no new licences for sniper rifles have been granted.""

CONFIRMATION of SALE + NERVE GAS to SYRIA

Not true Jim.
Your link only refers to "components" of nerve gas which happen also to be components for toothpaste.
As Teribus has told you the quantities were commensurate with toothpaste not nerve gas.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Greg F.
Date: 31 Aug 16 - 07:25 PM

The Powers that Be have removed my posts of this information.
exact quotes, threads, and date/times. As well as my comments about it.

Is that like "The dog ate my homework", BS-Bruce?

Or are you two years old like Bubo?

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Aug 16 - 02:57 PM

"Oh yes it was, NATO 7.62mm, so was the limiting value of the licence £30,000."
Whee - you have at no time linked to it and I never gave it - is one of yr 'makie-ups'
You have never shown that the ammunition you claim is used by the snipers is as you said - you don't do that sort of thing.
Nor have you ever shown that they only use one type of weapon.
Can we now assume that sales of ammunition were made - also sales of nerve gas?
Then maybe we can work our way through all your different excuses - then paerhaps we can start of Keith's all over again.
Plenty of days - as they say over here!!
"Seem there is no interest in the truth by the Liberal Establishment here."
Perhaps people don't like cowardly trolls
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: beardedbruce
Date: 31 Aug 16 - 02:29 PM

"From: Greg F. - PM
Date: 30 Aug 16 - 07:10 PM

Post of 30 Aug 16 - 12:18 PM is Bullshit from Bruce. Note: no quotes, no rerences,just his interpretation of what was saidseveral years ago."


The Powers that Be have removed my posts of this information.
exact quotes, threads, and date/times.
As well as my comments about it.

Seem there is no interest in the truth by the Liberal Establishment here.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Teribus
Date: 31 Aug 16 - 01:50 PM

"AT NO TIME WAS THE TYPE OF AMMUNITION EVER SPECIFIED"

Oh yes it was, NATO 7.62mm, so was the limiting value of the licence £30,000.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Aug 16 - 01:12 PM

CONFIRMATION of SALE + NERVE GAS to SYRIA
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Aug 16 - 01:06 PM

NOW ISN'T THIS INTERESTING?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Aug 16 - 01:01 PM

" let's take the ammunition you said was sold to Assad's regime"
Let's not, eh? - we really have been here
I said that ammuntion was sold to Assad and was licenced by the British Govenment
Keith immediately responded "all you could come up with was a few sniper rifles" - at a time Assad's snipers were taking out anything that moved on the streets of Homs.
You immediately denied any shipment had been BEEN ORDERED.
Having been given proof that it had in the form of a government report, you went on to "well, it may have been ordered, but it was never licenced".
You followed this with, "well, it was licenced, but the licence was withdrawn" - closely fOllowed by "the order was never sent".
Then we moved on to "it was for sporting guns"
Then we had "the order was not large enough to be of any use to the Syrian Army" - and - "it was sent far too early to be used by the snipers on the streets of Homs".
Then - "the order" (which you had no idea of the details of) "was for ammunition that was the "wrong size for the weapons used by the Syrian Army"
None of these contradictory claims were ever linked to anything resembling proof, of course - how could they have been?
AT NO TIME WAS THE TYPE OF AMMUNITION EVER SPECIFIED - YOU HAD NO IDEA WHAT IT WAS THAT HAD BEEN SENT - NEITHER HAD I - AS IS CUSTOMARY WITH YOU, YOU MAKE UP YOUR "FACTS" AND PRESENT THEM AS IF THEY ARE GOSPEL" - AND YOU STILL DON'T LINK ANY OF YOUR CLAIMS TO ACTUAL INFORMATION.
Your mate, in the meantime, continued to justify the sending of riot control equipment, tear gas, armoured cars and water cannon... et al. and suggesting that dealing with a dictator like Assad was fine as long as it was restricted to riot control equipment (presumably to enable Assad to bundle the Arab Spring protesters into his prisons and torture chambers and eventually "disappear" them!
Since then, you arguments have wobbled from - "the order was never made" or "never licenced" to your "wrong size" makie-up.
I will say, you give a wide selection of arguments to choose from - pity they don't relate to one another or to any facts we have about the sale.
Many thanks for the opportunity to run through all this again - you really are worth you weight in entertainment value.
Dean Martin and Jerry Lewis were amateurs compared to your's and Keith's idiotic straight man and idiot patsy act.
You really do need to decide which of you is which though - it's a bit confusing when you take it in turns!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Teribus
Date: 31 Aug 16 - 12:05 PM

Now then Jim - let's take the ammunition you said was sold to Assad's regime by the UK and used to kill people in Homs in 2012.

Your version is based on part of a newspaper article in the Daily Mail, and that was basically that. You failed to comment on the fact stated in the article you linked to that the British Government had sold nothing, what they had done was issue a private arms dealer an export licence for NATO 7.62x51mm small arms ammunition in 2009. Further digging identified the value of this licence at £30,000.

Now how do you go on about proving that an export licence wasn't used?

Some indicators would be that:

1: The Daily Mail article would have mentioned that £30,000 worth of 7.62mm ammo had been delivered - It didn't

2: The ammunition itself would be of no use whatsoever to the Syrian Police or Armed Forces who use Russian weapons that use 7.62x39mm ammunition, standard NATO 7.62x51mm Ammunition would be 12mm too long so it could not be fired.

3: Even in the unlikely event that this unusable ammunition was delivered, that delivery would have been in 2009, £30,000 buys in military terms a minute quantity of ammunition that certainly would not have still been around in 2012 to kill people in Homs (The only way the Syrian Armed Forces or police could have killed people with this ammunition would be if they dropped the boxes of it on people's heads)

Taking all of that into account, logically I would say that the ammo was never delivered. A newspaper article talking about an export licence being granted does not equate to proof that anything was delivered.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Aug 16 - 10:52 AM

Please deny this Teritwerp
I love relating the story of all your different, contrary excuses you gave for the ammunition sale and how it tied up (not) with your mate's "only a few sniper rifles" and "even democracies have a right to establish public order" version
Gorgeous unsynchronized swimming by both of you an a list of half-a-dozen hastily made-up contradictory excuses for supplying dictators with weapons at a time he was murdering his own people.
You could have scripted it and sold it to a sit-com producer.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Aug 16 - 10:28 AM

"Only trouble with that statement Carroll i"
Provide - denied by you - all of it
Your denials are worth FA without evidence
You are both serial deniers without evidence
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Teribus
Date: 31 Aug 16 - 10:15 AM

"I made my position clear on Syria while you and your thuggish mate were defending selling arms and equipment to Assad"

Only trouble with that statement Carroll is that over the course of 4 years you have still not been able to provide any proof whatsoever that any arms or equipment has been sold by the UK to Assad, and at no time at all have I ever defended the selling or arms to Assad by anybody.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Aug 16 - 09:29 AM

And your point is......?
Britain pushed through a deal which gave huge tracts of Arab lands to the incoming Jews - there was opposition to that deal - why wouldn't there be?
Even David Ben Gurion admitted that they had stolen Palestinian land and that he was an Arab he would not accept that position.
"I don't understand your optimism. Why should the Arabs make peace? If I was an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country. Sure God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? Our God is not theirs. We come from Israel, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been antisemitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that? They may perhaps forget in one or two generations' time, but for the moment there is no chance. So, it's simple: we have to stay strong and maintain a powerful army. Our whole policy is there. Otherwise the Arabs will wipe us out."
The policy of expansionism and settlements has reduced the original alloted lands to little more than a Palestinian ghetto - and that EXPANSIONISM is ongoing.
The future for the Palestinian People verges on being ETHNICALLY CLEANSED
The U.S. has prevented any attempt to bring Israel to the International Court for its war crimes - Israel has attempted to get the Court closed down (leaving nowhere to try genuine terrorists like Isis when they are finally defeated)
The Israeli regime has placed its own interests above those of the dangers the world faces from international terrorism.
It is to be admired that a small, impoverished State like Palestine is prepared to take on an aggressive nuclear power such as Israel in order to protect itself
Would that the rest of the world had as much bottle
BLOCKADE
Any boycot of Israeli goods deserves all the support it can get.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Aug 16 - 08:49 AM

"On 14 May 1948"
DER YASSIN MASSACRE April 9th 1948
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Aug 16 - 06:17 AM

"Jimmy-boyo,"
Bruce the Goose-stepper
BRUCE the GOOSE
What's your point? - no-one here supports the Islamic State.
Nor do we differentiated between mass murder by them and by Israel
That's the difference between you and us.
Israel facilitated and oversaw the rape, mutilation and mass-murder of 3,500 unarmed civilians - elderly and young, children and women (many of them pregnant and were raped, disemboweled and had their unborn children torn out of them) at Sabra-Shatila over a period of three days - and helped to bury the bodies under a Sports S
tadium so the exact number could never be known - witnessed and testified by Jewish witnesses - that has to be some sort of record.
That's what barbarism looks like.
Albert Einstein and many of his academic colleagues warned against the possible rise of Zionist fascism way back in the 1940s
Had they been around today they'd have been branded "Self-Hating Jews" by the Israeli regime.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: beardedbruce
Date: 31 Aug 16 - 05:56 AM

Jimmy-boyo,

THIS is what genocide looks like:

"In exclusive interviews, photos and research, The Associated Press has documented and mapped 72 of the mass graves, the most comprehensive survey so far, with many more expected to be uncovered as the Islamic State group's territory shrinks. In Syria, AP has obtained locations for 17 mass graves, including one with the bodies of hundreds of members of a single tribe all but exterminated when IS extremists took over their region. For at least 16 of the Iraqi graves, most in territory too dangerous to excavate, officials do not even guess the number of dead. In others, the estimates are based on memories of traumatized survivors, Islamic State propaganda and what can be gleaned from a cursory look at the earth.

Still, even the known numbers of victims buried are staggering — from 5,200 to more than 15,000.

Sinjar mountain is dotted with mass graves, some in territory clawed back from IS after the group's onslaught against the Yazidi minority in August 2014; others in the deadly no man's land that has yet to be secured."

https://www.yahoo.com/news/buried-thousands-72-mass-graves-ap-finds-061041339.html

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Aug 16 - 04:59 AM

"The fact is that Israel acted within the law in Gaza."
The Israelis have not faced the law on their behavior in Gaza - the Americans have made sure of that.
There have been constant calls for the Israelis to face the International Criminal Court for its war crimes in Gaza and they have been blocked by American vetoes.
AMERICAN SUPPORT FOR WAR CRIMES
SUPPORT FOR WAR CRIMES
Israel has gone to the extent of calling for the INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT to be closed so that it does not have to answer for its crimes.
The facts you have been given speak for themselves.
The Israelis have not "struck back at criminals" - they have massacred civilians who have committed no crimes - men, women and children- go count the civilian dead down he years.
"Syria commits them every day, so why do you always and only attack Israel?"
I made my position clear on Syria while you and your thuggish mate were defending selling arms and equipment to Assad - you are now desperately lying to save face - again.
To save you further trouble - we get your message loud and clear:
It is ok to use chemical weapons on civilians as long as it is the Israelis who are doing so or if they are constructed of material sold to the Assad regime by Britain - you have defended both vigourously.
It was well worth a re-visit to this thread to have you reiterate your caseas clear as you have.
Many thanks
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Aug 16 - 03:53 AM

The fact is that Israel acted within the law in Gaza.
A war criminal who chooses to fight from civilian areas must not be allowed to gain from his crime, or other criminals would emulate them.

Israel had a right and a duty to strike back at criminals who repeatedly attempted to commit atrocities against Israeli civilians, wherever they chose to commit their war crimes.

Israel acted within International Law, and is guilty of no atrocities.
Syria commits them every day, so why do you always and only attack Israel?

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Aug 16 - 03:35 AM

Jim,
They have (committed atrocities) and you've seen the results you denying prock

Israel has committed no atrocity, while Syria has been committing them every day for five years and continues today.
Why do you always and only criticise Israel.

These were used against civilians in schools - not an a ***** battllefield

It was a battlefield because Hamas, uncaring war criminals that they are, chose to operate from there. Israel acted within International Law.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Aug 16 - 07:10 PM

Post of 30 Aug 16 - 12:18 PM is Bullshit from Bruce. Note: no quotes, no rerences,just his interpretation of what was saidseveral years ago.

As usual, true to his name.

And now I'm done with the asshole.

---

Copy/paste thread-bombing (with none of his own words) is appropriate for deletion. -Mod

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Aug 16 - 04:31 PM

"The weapon is not illegal itself and can be used to provide a smokescreen on the battlefield or as an incendiary weapon against a military target"
These were used against civilians in schools - not an a ***** battllefield
By your own words you have proved them to be illegally used - don't you even read your own postings?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Aug 16 - 04:22 PM

Which has committed none?
They have and you've seen the results you denying prock
I attacked Syria when you were defending sewlling ammunition and equipment to the bastards, so don't try that one.
You are defending a nuclear facilitated power who claim to be acting on a belief that they have been chosen by God which gives them the right to drive ut and slaughter everyboidy - men, women, old peole - whoever, who gets in their way.
The bulk of their victims are not fighters - they are impoverished, third-world peasants - they are being humiliated by these "chosen people" in exactly the same way the Nazis persecuted the real Jewish People - not the scum who describes Jews who oppose their fascist policies as "Self Hating Jews".
Yu are defending Israeli fascism, - you never hav had the slightest interest in the Jewish People
You may take your @Implanted pervert' philosophyt and shove it up your extremist holes - all of you
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Aug 16 - 02:41 PM

Jim, Syria commits atrocities every day, so why do you only and always attack Israel, which has committed none?

If an enemy repeatedly attempts to commit atrocities on a civilian population, their government has not just the legal right, but a duty to strike back at them.
Israel acted within the law to attack Hamas in Gaza.
Hamas, uncaring war criminals that they are, chose to make civilian areas a battlefield. Not Israel.

The use of WP smoke on the battlefield is perfectly legal, but even so I considered it reckless and deplorable in that instance (Gaza 2008).
Israel seems to agree and has not used it in subsequent operations, so lets move on to actual war crimes actually happening now.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Aug 16 - 01:25 PM

Jim, Israel's side of the story from your first link,
"These shells were used for specific operational needs only and in accord with international humanitarian law. The claim that smoke shells were used indiscriminately, or to threaten the civilian population, is baseless."

The Guardian view as stated in that link,

"White phosphorus burns in contact with oxygen and causes deep burns when it touches human skin, sometimes reaching to the bone. The weapon is not illegal itself and can be used to provide a smokescreen on the battlefield or as an incendiary weapon against a military target. However, its use is regulated even by customary international law."

The munitions used were smoke generating, not incendiary weapons.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Aug 16 - 01:23 PM

More Syrians are now refugees driven out of Syria than the TOTAL PALESTINIAN population of Gaza AND the West Bank.

Yet Jimmy-boyo keeps repeating the same old attacks on Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Aug 16 - 01:20 PM

Like I said, Jimmy-boyo


Not one word of thousands of Kurds gassed, tens of thousands of Syrians killed, or any of the accused war crimes of ANY other group.


20,000 dead Palestinians- ok BY YOU, as long as it was Jordanians that killed them.


Launching rockets in schoolyards, a violation of the Geneva Conventions? OK by you, even better when they misfire and fall back onto the civilians around the launch site- THEN you can blame the Jews.



How many 100,000s of Syrians will you ignore being killed in order to attack Israel?

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Aug 16 - 12:50 PM

YOUR mentioning it does not count- and I just reread day one and two, and there is no mention of Israel.
Maybe I shouls have said "week 1"
This thread Started 24th August 2013 - your Israeli intervention came on the 27th August - three days later.
Do not tell us where to make our postings, you dishonest Antisemitic prick
"I did not deny the incident, and I deplored that use of WP smoke."
Smoke which burned holes in children's faces.
Only an inhumanly sadistic bastard would attempt to call that "smoke".
What kind of people are you?
White phosphorus was used as a chemical weapon and children as well as non combatant civilians - schools were noted as coming under attack and being targeted
"The following are photos of an Israeli white phosphorus attack in a UNRWA school in Beit Lahia in Gaza. White phosphorus is illegal to use in civilian areas, and its use by Israel constitutes a war crime.
Two children were killed in this attack, a mother lost her legs, and dozens were injured. Others who inhaled white phosphorus fumes may only know the effect of the attack on their health in time.
Next time a Zionist apologist tells you Israel doesn't use white phosphorus in illegal ways, point them to these pictures, and let them try to deny the obvious."
You've been given the link

Israel's military fired white phosphorus over crowded areas of Gaza repeatedly and indiscriminately in its three-week war, killing and injuring civilians and committing war crimes, Human Rights Watch said today.
In a 71-page report, the rights group said the repeated use of air-burst white phosphorus artillery shells in populated areas of Gaza was not incidental or accidental, but revealed "a pattern or policy of conduct".
It said the Israeli military used white phosphorus in a "deliberate or reckless" way. The report says:
Israel was aware of the dangers of white phosphorus.
It chose not to use alternative and less dangerous smoke shells.
In one case, Israel even ignored repeated warnings from UN staff before hitting the main UN compound in Gaza with white phosphorus shells on 15 January.
"In Gaza, the Israeli military didn't just use white phosphorus in open areas as a screen for its troops," said Fred Abrahams, a senior Human Rights Watch researcher. "It fired white phosphorus repeatedly over densely populated areas, even when its troops weren't in the area and safe smoke shells were available. As a result, civilians needlessly suffered and died." He said senior commanders should be held to account.
Human Rights Watch called on the UN secretary-general, Ban Ki-moon, to launch an international commission of inquiry to investigate allegations of violations of international law in the Gaza war by the Israeli military and Hamas, the Palestinian Islamist movement that controls Gaza.
The Israeli military has defended its conduct in Gaza in the face of mounting allegations of serious violations of international law and said its soldiers did not intentionally target civilians. When Israel's use of white phosphorus emerged during the war, the military at first denied using the weapon, then said it only used weapons in accordance with international law. Later it announced an internal inquiry, led by a colonel, would be held.
INDISCRIMINATE USE of WHITE PHOSPHORUS

"We have seen Gaza used as a laboratory for testing what I call weapons from hell," said David Halpin, a retired British surgeon and trauma specialist who has visited Gaza on several occasions to investigate unusual injuries suffered by Gazans.
Times of London
Israeli soldier prepares a phosphorus shell. The pale blue 155mm rounds are clearly marked with the designation M825A1, an American-made white phosphorus munition. - Times of London
"I fear the thinking in Israel is that it is in its interests to create as much mutilation as possible to terrorize the civilian population in the hope they will turn against Hamas."
Gaza's doctors, including one of the few foreigners there, Mads Gilbert, a Norwegian specialist in emergency medicine working at al-Shifa hospital in Gaza City, report that many of the injuries they see are consistent with the use of DIME."
USE of WHITE PHOSPHORUS, DIME and OTHER EXPERIMENTAL WEAPONS
Israel is an extremist, religion-based right wing state
It's possible stockpile of CHEMICAL and BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS make it among the most dangerous (if not the most dangerous) State on the planet
Jim Carroll




Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Aug 16 - 12:48 PM

So, Jimmy-Boyo,

You are fine with the Palestinians being killed off by Syrian or Iranian
WMD, as long as those pesky Jews get hurt too?

I note your silence on ANY use of WMD that is not by Israel- and since the maxim of the law is "Silence implies consent" ...


But then you have never demonstrated any concern FOR anyone, just AGAINST JEWS.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Aug 16 - 12:23 PM

first mention of Israel was 25 Aug 13 0856 by Little Hawk, along with US and the idea of a false flag operation.
At 28 Aug 13 0401 PM I mentioned that the Palestinians were being ignored, as they were in danger if Syria or Iran used WMD (Which include chemical warfare) on the Israelis- ANY use in the region would put Palestinians in danger.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Aug 16 - 12:18 PM

Yes, GregtrF did so.

First he made the statement that I had called someone a "Dumb Ni**er"

When I called him on that lie he stated that someone else had done so, so I was equally guilty.

When I told him to prove that ANYONE had stated that, he pulls out a quote (NOT FROM ME) that someone in the US who had done something stupid was "Black and a Democrat" , which he crowed proved his point as he read that as "Dumb Ni**er"

All documented on the threads involved. Unless GregtrF has had his supporting mudelves clean up past postings to cover his racism.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Aug 16 - 11:53 AM

Good heavens did Greg F. really put that in print?

Actually, no, T-Bird. Its old BullshitBruce chopping up and re-combining posts & taking things out of context.

A tactic you yourself are quite adept at.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Aug 16 - 11:47 AM

jimmy-Boyo,

"Israel has been part of this discussion from day one and has been mentioned 333 time so far"


YOUR mentioning it does not count- and I just reread day one and two, and there is no mention of Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Aug 16 - 11:16 AM

You denied it, making your deploring it deplorable hypocrisy and totally meaningless

I did not deny the incident, and I deplored that use of WP smoke.

Posphporus used against civilians is a weapon and is illegal - Israel targeted schools with it

No weapon should be used against civilians. Smoke as used in Gaza would not penetrate a building such as a school. The pictures show them bouncing off the roofs. A warning of the event was given with the advice to stay indoors and be safe.

The devices used in Gaza were phosphorus weapons and condemned as such

No they were not.

Israel has never used chemical weapons. That is a fact and calling me names does not change it.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Aug 16 - 10:52 AM

beardedbruce - 30 Aug 16 - 09:42 AM - Good heavens did Greg F. really put that in print? And he has the nerve to call others racists, well I never.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Aug 16 - 10:35 AM

"I did not defend it. I deplored it."
You denied it, making your deploring it deplorable hypocrisy and totally meaningless
"Phosphorous is not a chemical weapon."
Posphporus used against civilians is a weapon and is illegal - Israel targeted schools with it
You are a deplorable hypocrite
"The devices used in Gaza were smoke generators, "
The devices used in Gaza were phosphorus weapons and condemned as such - you have the condemnation from Human Rights Watch
You are a deplorable hypocrite
"Not true. Israel has never used chemical weapons."
Yes it has Keith - you are a scumbag for denying it.
"you bring up another nation"
You were the first to mention the modern State of Israel (apart from Biblical quotes) as far back as (28 Aug 13 - 04:01 PM)
"No comment at all about the Palestinians that would be killed by any use by Syria or Iran of the WMD they have threatened Israel with."
Israel has been part of this discussion from day one and has been mentioned 333 time so far
Read the thread or get someone to read it for you Brucie
Stop scurrying behind thread drift - chemical weapons appears in the title and Israel's usage is a valid part of this discussion, especially as you were the one who brought it in. and were happy to use it when it suitd you
Somebody who has one rule for himself and another for the rest of us.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Aug 16 - 09:30 AM

What kind of human detritus defends such actions?
I did not defend it. I deplored it.
Phosphorous is not a chemical weapon. Look it up. All national armies use it.
The devices used in Gaza were smoke generators, and not actual weapons at all, but you will remember that I deplored its use in those circumstances.
It was not "used against" anyone. It was used to produce a smoke screen

Israel uses chemical weapons and has been accused of doing so by respectable independent observers

Not true. Israel has never used chemical weapons.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: bobad
Date: 30 Aug 16 - 09:26 AM

Why are you trying to turn a thread about chemical weapons in Syria into another exercise in Israel bashing? You are becoming as hatefully obsessive as Carroll.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Aug 16 - 08:57 AM

Who the hell woke up BeardedBS ??? Things were bad enough before with Bubo.

Or perhaps the two of them are clones, taking turns.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Aug 16 - 08:54 AM

"Syria, a Middle Eastern country, has a population that's difficult to determine due to instability. Approximately 5,000 flee Syria every day. In 2012, the country had a population estimated at 22,530,746, and this number dropped to an estimated population of 22,457,336 as of September 2013. In 2016, further declines have led to an estimated population of 18,215,868.

Just recently, Syria was considered a rapidly growing country in the area, growing over 2% in 2009, and growing from just 6 million in 1971 to its current population of 18 million."


4 million left or killed!



Yet those evil Israelis are far more important to discuss- after all, they are killing off all the Palestinians, right, Jimmy-Boy?

Not quite:

Population (millions)(mid year)
Year         West Bank Gaza         Total
1970         0.69         0.34         1.03
1980         0.90         0.46         1.36
1990         1.25         0.65         1.90
2000         1.98         1.13         3.11
2004         2.20         1.30         3.50
2008         2.41         1.5         3.91
2010         2.52         1.60         4.12
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
2006         2.5         1.5         4.0
2009         2.48         1.45         3.94
Source: Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Aug 16 - 08:40 AM

Latest reports are that 20% of the Syrian population are refugees who have left Syria, and about half of the total population has been displaced.


But Jimmy-Boy would rather have us discuss something else.

Subject: RE: BS: chemical weapons in Syria
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Aug 16 - 08:37 AM

Yet on this thread to discuss the SYRIAN conflict, you bring up another nation, distracting from the very real ( as even you seem to say) problem IN SYRIA.

This looks like you would rather criticize Israel than to discuss the greater killings in Syria by Moslems. Looks like your opposition to "War crimes" depends on who you can blame them on.




The UN has defined this sort of bias as
"ANTI_SEMITISM"


And you are providing a textbook case with your posting here about Israel, after your admission that you oppose the Syrian regime but would rather discuss Israel than engage in a discussion of that regime.