BS: If Russia didn't do it..?

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 09:12 PM

You don't know that, do you?

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 10:13 PM

Please indulge me..
This seems to good an opportunity not to transplant a slighty modified version
of my final post in the now closed thread [yes.. that one..]

I think it's more relevant here, now...
and yes I couldn't be bothered editing out the crap whimsical paragraph...



Last night I fell asleep during a long drama documentary about Daniel Boone...
[hooray for buffer memory and rewind...!!!]

Interestingly this documentary seemed almost as fictionalised as if it had been a Hollywood action movie,
compared to the wiki history for this man.
I don't know why they bother making these productions.
Either make an accurate documentary,
or just give us a proper scant regard for history based on real 'a true story' pop corn action movie.
These expensively stage hybrid re-enactment drama-docs just over condense, simplify, and fictionalise far too much.
I feel cheated.

Which brings me on to the point of real time news reporting of current international conflicts and wars;
and being able to trust what is depicted on screen and in print.

How would World War 2 have progressed if 24/7 news channels and internet social media had existed back then.
With every event being covered and commented on in fine detail in up to the minute real time..
with panels of journalists and experts arguing opinions on what is really happening and who is to blame...

How much different might received history be now,
how altered would classic World war 2 movie accounts of dramatic heroic events have to be...?????

Now, 21st century.. how much longer before viewers are invited to to phone in to select winners and losers,
who gets killed in Syria and who survives onto the next round...????

Ok let's spin the wheel of death - odd numbers Asshat & Russia did it,
even numbers it was staged by activists..
bonus number and we will implicate CIA / MI6...

Ffs.. If we can't trust modern media and social networks...???

So finally.. I don't know what's really real or not just from watching BBC news reports,
and so don't think most ordinary folks should make arrogant dogmatic pronouncments based on such uncertainty...
The only reasonable position should be healthy scepticism in public discourse,
even if we have made our own minds up based on informed judgement and opinion / prejudice in private...???

Respect expert opinions, but do not automatically trust them entirely ...

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Apr 18 - 04:10 AM

Picking up from last night's posting
Information is becoming less and less available despite the internet
Last year Britain lost thousands of SENSITIVE HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS
I am finding while searching for information during discussions here that information that was freely available last year had disappeared, particularly on Israel - as far as I can find, the dozens of photographs of children burned by white phosphorus have been removed from the net
A year or so ago, Haaretz pointed out that many of the David Ben Gurion Papers have been locked away from the public gaze
We all know how Trump passes on what he wishes the people to have - and we know how his 'tail' in Westminster is always happy to wag Americas message here
The Irish referendum on pregnancy termination is now dominated by vicious misinformation put out by church-dominated 'No' supporters (such as "access to abortion will inevitably lead to euthanasia" as pronounced by the Bishops)   
A population with even less access to the facts that we have had in the past is not a comfortable prospect for the future
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Iains
Date: 21 Apr 18 - 04:23 AM

Pfr Congratulations. I like your summary.

My take is below:
Do politcians lie?
Do bears shit in the woods?
Is the pope a Catholic?

An illusion masquerades as reality much of the time and is only presented after spin, censorship and extensive massage.

An example: We are told Arab spring was spontaneous when it reached Syria, and dissatisfaction with the regime was so high it mutated into civil war.
But:
View 1

View 2

View 3

Now what of the above best explains the present chaotic situation in Syria?
Who has a persistent history of meddling?
Who has grabbed the oil and gas assets of the regime and straddles the main water supply of the country?

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Apr 18 - 04:27 AM

Iains,
Keith from the way you take the "party" line in this thread it is obvious that you believe the politicians every time.

I do not, but when the choice is between believing Putin (Guardian,"Putin: The New Tsar review – a portrait of a lonely, lying narcissist)
or the governments of every liberal democracy in the world, I believe the democracies.

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Apr 18 - 04:40 AM

Given a choice between believing any politician and trusting my own judgement I would chose the latter. But the choice is never as binary as some people have us believe. There are elements of grey that politicians rely on. The yarns they spin all contain an element of truth but if you hold up that yarn for close scrutiny you will find the holes.

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Apr 18 - 05:04 AM

Dave,
Given a choice between believing any politician and trusting my own judgement I would chose the latter.

Then you are a fool. What knowledge is your judgement based on?
Have you studied the reports available to governments?
What do you know about any of this Dave apart from what you read in the papers?
Did you take into account that he has previously murdered here, and lied about that as well as lying about cheating in the Olympics, lied about its intervention in Crimea, lied about the shooting down of a Malaysian airliner, lied about their murders of Litvinenko, liberal politician Boris Nemtsov and investigative journalist Anna Politkovskaya,...

These governments have seen the actual evidence and based on that evidence their judgement is that Putin and his regime lied about this too:-
United States: 60 United Kingdom: 23 Ukraine: 13 Canada: 4 France: 4 Germany: 4 Poland: 4 Lithuania: 3 Czech Republic: 3 Spain: 2 Australia: 2 Denmark: 2 Italy: 2 Netherlands: 2 Albania: 2 Estonia: 1 Romania: 1 Sweden: 1 Croatia: 1 Finland: 1 Latvia: 1 Hungary: 1 Macedonia: 1 Norway: 1

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Iains
Date: 21 Apr 18 - 05:12 AM

Back to the thread:
No recent news on Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia.
Is a D notice in force?
Are they still in the UK?
Why are the Russians not allowed to see their citizens?
Why have they not been interviewed on TV?
Questions, Questions!
No matter how I look at this 2+2 still makes 5.

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Apr 18 - 05:47 AM

"Why are the Russians not allowed to see their citizens?"
Are you serious?
Even if the accusations of Russian involvement are unfounded no authorities would give the main suspect access to the victims
Not sure what your three links are supposed to prove - one from Wiki who you have already dismissed as unreliable the others from dissidents groups who do not deal in any way with Assad's reign of terror
Are you seriously suggestion that the Britannica article is part of a conspiracy theory?
Grabbing articcles that back your arguments and ignoring the thousands of others that don't is 'Keithising' the discussion - he's already worked that on into the ground, so you are too late
If you are going to make a case you need to expose the decades of information on torture chambers and mass-murder head on and not sidestep them, as you (and your articles) are doing here
Of course the CIA are involved - interference in other nations policies is what they do - this in no way lessens the crimes of Assad's terror regime
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Iains
Date: 21 Apr 18 - 06:17 AM

Of course the CIA are involved - interference in other nations policies is what they do - this in no way lessens the crimes of Assad's terror regime

But this begs the question was the chicken or the egg first to the party?
All regimes maintain control by the black arts. Why was the report on David Kelly locked up for 70 years? The jolly japes at Guantanamo Bay
are performed in the name of democracy. At least Saudi makes no effort trying to hide it's authoritarian rule.

There is a high degree of hypocrisy throughout. We are supposed to distinguish between good baddies and bad baddies. The only distinguishing feature between the two camps is red and black on a balance sheet! That is the reality!

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Apr 18 - 06:25 AM

Why are the Russians not allowed to see their citizens?

Skripal's daughter was reported as refusing to talk to anyone from the regime, perhaps because they tried to murder her and her father.

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Iains
Date: 21 Apr 18 - 06:43 AM

The jury is still out, on what can only be an allegation, as yet.
Interesting they are hidden from the media. Are they still in the UK?

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Apr 18 - 06:44 AM

Incidentally
Back in 1968 I was part of the massive demonstration against Vietnam at the American Embassy in Grosvenor Square - I had Peggy Seeger as a minder (still makes me wake up with the cold sweats when I remember her enthusiasm)
I was pissed of to see a number of "demonstrators" i assumed were Anarchists using placards as spears to hurm at the police lines - until I saw the same "demonstrators" in the police lines keeping the crowds back
Anarchists or agents provocateurs this in no way lessened the justice of the demonstration against what was happening in Vietnam
MI5s involvement in no way lessens the justification ao the Arab protests (unlss, of course, you claim that they had no reason to protest in the first place)
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Apr 18 - 06:45 AM

"The jury is still out, on what can only be an allegation, as yet."
Until it is "in" - you don't give the accused access to the victim

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Apr 18 - 06:53 AM

I would suggest that they are hidden from any strangers, given the nature of the attack
It seems that, now the site of the attack has been opened up, the public may be at risk from the poison used
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Apr 18 - 09:15 AM

It is folly to believe anything that governments tell you blindly and equally nonsensical to trust any media source. The best we can do it listen to all the arguments and make up our own minds.

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Iains
Date: 21 Apr 18 - 10:19 AM

"Information is becoming less and less available despite the internet"
That is probably true if qualified by a timeframe encompassing the rapid growth of internet access. This would probably be since 2000.
The TV age has only really existed in the UK since the mid 50's
The BBC started in 1922. Telegraphy by semaphore in 1797,electrically 1822. The first transatlantic cable 1858. Spreading news was obviously subjected to natural constraints until the growth of satellite communications and the internet.
Government everywhere likes to control who knows what, irregardless of what part of the political spectrum they inhabit. They have been trying desperately to censor it, especially in recent years.
Probably deregulation and charging for bandwidth will do much to throttle it back and coupled with search engine interference the internet of tomorrow will be semi castrated. But they will still hoover up your every key stroke. Control is the name of the game.
However for most applications the internet is a research instrument without equal.

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: bobad
Date: 21 Apr 18 - 10:33 AM

The best we can do it listen to all the arguments and make up our own minds.

Alternatively, the worst we can do is ignore all the evidence on ideological grounds.

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Apr 18 - 10:44 AM

If no evidence exists ideology and past record is all we have to go on
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Raggytash
Date: 21 Apr 18 - 10:48 AM

You're jumping through hoops Dave!!

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 21 Apr 18 - 10:49 AM

Jim - we understand you are mightily disillusioned with Russia, and for very good reasons...

..and chances are, ultimately Putin's Russia is actually to blame for everything...???

But your insistent condemnation of Russia is getting a bit overwhelming
whilst others here are proposing a sceptical doubtful analysis
of how our Boris/May Govt is exploiting this Salisbury incident
for their own cynical devious tory ends...

You may actually be in danger of starting to sound a bit like you're crossing the floor to K****'s side...!!!?????

Which would be entirely bonkers,
and obviously not really where you are intentionally going with this anti Russia sounding line of argument...????

Gotta be careful K**** don't start thinking you're becoming mates with him...

Comrade Punkerovfolkrockerski

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Apr 18 - 11:25 AM

Side stepping them I hope, Raggy :-)

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Iains
Date: 21 Apr 18 - 12:00 PM

Do you not notice that gory photos and video clips are not shown in the UK. War is only shown in a sanitized form. That is obvious censorship, on the grounds that you do not want to give kids or little old ladies nightmares. I doubt anyone has an argument with that.
That is merely a part of what happens however. D notices and spin masters primarily, if not exclusively serve, the government and their handlers. What is presented is for the majority to graze on, because only a minority questions the content.

An example using climate change:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268074188_Twist_and_Shout_Images_and_Graphs_in_Skeptical_Climate_Media

If the messenger cannot be removed, first destroy his reputation and credibility.

Example: Dr David Kelly was officially Chief Scientist for Chemical and Biological Defence at Porton Down and head of microbiology at the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory.
He was acknowledged to be a foremost expert in the field of biological and chemical weapons.
Yet...
Aug 5, 2003 - Downing Street was forced to admit last night that a senior official had tried to discredit the Iraq weapons expert David Kelly by describing him as a Walter Mitty fantasist.

To take on faith the utterances of government is very, very foolish!

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 21 Apr 18 - 12:06 PM

Jim - reason for my last post is a reminder of the thread title
[which I forgot to include in that post..]

"BS: If Russia didn't do it..?"...

here we entertain the hypothetical notion of other remotely possible culprits... that's all...

In my mind, this is an anti - tory thread... but then, that's what all threads should be...!!!



Comrade Punkerovfolkrockerski

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Apr 18 - 12:17 PM

"But your insistent condemnation of Russia is getting a bit overwhelming"
Sorry - have I nor said that no evidence exists - could have sworn I had?
I said I see no reason why they didn't - THE HAVE DONE SIMILAR THINGS IN THE PAST, (or are you suggesting the Boris/May Govt did did this for their own cynical devious Tory ends as well)... they interfered in the American elections and possibly the Brexit referendum.... not the Russia I knew.
I watched the programme on the Trump/Putin/Mafia links and realised how firmly the new Russia has moved to being one of Keith's "decent, democratic and fair minded countries" with all that implies
I have no doubt that British security are quite capable of having carried out such an attack, but what on earth have they got to gain from it?
Britain has been totally wimpish in its attitude to Assad and to Putin - what has happened to change that?
Nothing, as far as I can see
When all this is over Assad, Putin and whatever right wing moron running Britain will climb back into one another's pockets - the British establishment needs "a safe pair of hands" at the helm in "free" Russia
Jim

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Apr 18 - 12:22 PM

Sorry - not being definitive about all this - I really would be interested in a response to what Britain could possibly gain from this - ***** if I can work it out
Jim

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 21 Apr 18 - 12:40 PM

Jim - all's ok..

Basically everywhere else it's "Russia definitely dunnit" - and even though they quite likely did,
I'd love this to be a catalyst for exposing Boris/May in some related collusion over the on-going Salisbury dirty doings...

That'd be a good result..
to get rid of the tory govt blight on Britain for at least another 5 years...

[well it's a sunny spring Saturday - gotta aspire to have some positive dreams...]

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Iains
Date: 21 Apr 18 - 12:47 PM

Follow the money!
Europe’s second-largest gas supplier after Russia exported 116 billion cubic meters (bcm) of natural gas via pipelines to receiving terminals in Britain, Germany, France and Belgium last year, up from the previous record of 108.6 bcm in 2016.

Norway’s pipeline gas exports meet about a quarter of Europe’s demand.
BUT: in the 2020's production will decline.
Quatar has the 3rd largest gas deposits in the world. The trans Syrian pipeline to export to the Med. is simply not going to happen. Russia, Syria and Iran say so. Reason Below.


When Norway puts the brakes on who is going to take up the slack.
Who is going to calling Mr Putin SIR?

Russia         47,800,000         million cubic meters reserves.
Iran           34,020,000         
Qatar                24,530,000

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Apr 18 - 12:50 PM

"I'd love this to be a catalyst for exposing Boris/May in some related collusion over the on-going Salisbury dirty doings..."
Me too, but to be perfectly honest, they're doing a great job in shitting on their own doorstep to need out help - leave it to their expertise in that
Personally, I think the next step is going to be stopping Assad from wreaking his revenhge
Jim

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Iains
Date: 21 Apr 18 - 05:24 PM

I wonder if the BBC or CNN pick up on   this:


"The United States, France and the United Kingdom violated international law by launching airstrikes against Syria in response to a suspected chemical weapons attack, an independent German parliamentary report has found."

“Military force used against a state to punish it for infringing an international convention violates the prohibition of force under international law,” said the report by the German parliament’s non-partisan

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Kenny B (inactive)
Date: 21 Apr 18 - 06:44 PM

Iains .. "I wonder if the BBC or CNN pick up on   this:"
          I hope you are not holding your breath

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 21 Apr 18 - 10:58 PM

Big story on BBC today is the untimely death of a Swedish DJ.......
Not a lot of time left for other less important breaking news....!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Apr 18 - 03:24 AM

"Military force used against a state to punish it for infringing an international convention violates the prohibition of force under international law,"
I am totally opposed to the airstrikes but they weren't made to "punish" anybody - Assad and Russia will remain friends of Britain and America as long are they are useful
It is language like this that avoids the important issues here
The raids were "gesture politics" - an attempt to appear as if something was being done when in fact the situation is still the same and civilians are still being slaughtered daily.
If human rights and war crimes were an issue, action should have been taken when the knowledge of how Assad was dealing with opponents (as far back as 2006) became public knowledge.
Had this happened the world would never have had Isis to deal with
You are still scooping up and flinging around meaningless opinions from the most bizarre sources which is probably why you are failing to identify them.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Iains
Date: 22 Apr 18 - 04:15 AM

You are still scooping up and flinging around meaningless opinions from the most bizarre sources which is probably why you are failing to identify them.
Insults to make up for lack of substance in your argument?
Are you one of the muppets that cannot believe anything unless delivered on a plate with all the trimmings by the BBC? or perhaps you have not been taught the delights of google? or maybe you   refuse to believe others do not agree with your narrow, blinkered, entirely obsolete mindset?

Can you not make a post without being abusive? Perhaps the moderators should chastise you, instead of simply closing the threads you infect.

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Apr 18 - 04:26 AM

"Insults to make up for lack of substance in your argument?"
No - this is eaxtly what you are doing
Unless you have reduced to Keith's level of ignoring arguments by claiming nobody is producing it, it is you who is not putting forward YOUR case
"Can you not make a post without being abusive?"
Where is there any abuse in my posting?
"Perhaps the moderators should chastise you, instead of simply closing the threads you infect. "
Back to your old self - pity!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Apr 18 - 05:30 AM

As happens Iains I am in ttal agreement over the illegality of this attack - nothing about this dirty, dirty war is or should be legal
Not the point
The important things is that it is immoral and inhuman and siding with one side or the other makes anybody who does that part of it
If you find that "insulting" - feel free to do so
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Iains
Date: 22 Apr 18 - 07:24 AM

Jim there are nuggets of truth in what you say, but your presentation skills need work on.

The media present Assad as a murdering tyrant.

How many has Assad killed in the last 10 years?
How many the coalition?

Seems the tyrant aspect is dominant over the murdering.

A few items to consider:

1)We are told most chemical weapons are binary.
Question: The recent missile mission in Syria supposedly targeted the factories producing chemical weapons. Now if you blow up stockpiles of A and B do they not mix? When they mix do they not produce toxic clouds?
Now who is the guilty party in this case? How many people were poisoned as a result of this carefully crafted chemical weapon attack?
Was is not a war crime worthy of International opprobrium?
What did we have? not a whisper!
I notice that during a recent UN debate when the Syrian representative had the floor to point out a few uncomfortable truths, the arrogant US representative got up and walked out!

2) The Novichok story by no means convinces everyone.
A summary below.
summary

3)The chemical weapon allegation at Douma was publicised as a false flag event by the Russians and Assad weeks ago. The first western reporters on the ground report false flag-no evidence seen. White helmets evacuated along with the terrorists. I wonder why?

4) The missile attack was supposedly on chemical weapon facilities, the Russians claim the attack was to degrade Syrian air defences.
Who to believe?
What are the more strategically important targets?

5) The coalition(US) had no UN sanction for the missile attack.
Why carry it out before the OPCW had time to investigate and report?

6) The media rarely mention is that Chinese troops are already on the ground in Syria to fight thousands of Uyghur militants, whether in ISIS or the Chinese al-Qaeda.


"The United States is not the only country with red lines. By disregarding and violating other states’ legitimate security interests, be it Russia or China, President Donald Trump risks opening the Pandora’s box of drawing in additional great powers to defend the Syrian government from terrorists and regime change.
China has key interests in Syria"

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Apr 18 - 07:28 AM

“Military force used against a state to punish it for infringing an international convention violates the prohibition of force under international law,”

That was not the legal argument used.

BBC,
"In the summary of legal advice given by Attorney General Jeremy Wright to Mrs May, Downing Street outlined why the UK was "permitted under international law" to take measures in the face of "overwhelming humanitarian suffering".
It said there were three reasons why the strikes met international laws for military action on humanitarian grounds:
The "repeated lethal use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime constitutes a war crime" and it was "highly likely the regime would seek to use" such weapons again
Other attempts to "alleviate the humanitarian suffering caused by the use of chemical weapons" had been blocked and there was "no practicable alternative" to the strikes
The action was "carefully considered" and the "minimum judged necessary for that purpose""

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Apr 18 - 07:59 AM

"
Jim there are nuggets of truth in what you say, but your presentation skills need work on. "
Matter of opinion - they seem clear enough to most people
"How many has Assad killed in the last 10 years?
How many the coalition?"
Not even a consideration - once certainly does not cancel out the other and Assad's reign of terror goes way back beyond the present conflict and is the cause of it
You can't justify crimes by pointing to other criminals
Assad tortured and murder many thousands before Isis was the tinkle in anybody's eye and when this is all over he will murder many more if he is not banged up as a war criminal - the nature of the beast
Everything else in your posing is an example of your taking sides, which sets you apart from the rest of us - as far as I am concerned, my concern has been for the loss of life and liberty of vast masses of humanity - as far as the politicians are concerned - I hope they all rot in their self-made hells and leave the the rest of the planet to get on with their lives
Another anonymous quote (from The Strategic culture Foundation) doesn't move us on from here one iota
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Iains
Date: 22 Apr 18 - 08:15 AM

Jim the only way to judge severity is by the number killed. Putting labels on participants does not lessen the crime.

"Another anonymous quote (from The Strategic culture Foundation) doesn't move us on from here one iota"
The authors clearly list themselves.
You make your usual attack on the source, not the content.

Do you expect me to also discount everything in the mainstream media simply because they are proven organs of propaganda or a particular political bias?
I make this point again. Do you only believe what the BBC tells you?

I make no secret of casting my net as wide as possible. I also make it very clear I do not believe everything my sources say.

Can you not sort wheat from chaff, or do you throw the baby out with the bathwater?

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Apr 18 - 08:27 AM

"Jim the only way to judge severity is by the number killed. "
I'm not attempting to judge the "severity" neither should any human being be; it's the cause of these shitty wars that should concern us and the effects they are having on this planet and its people
Neither Assad or his opponents can take the high ground her so why support any of them - nobody ever asked me or mine whether our money should be spent in the pursuit of oil (which is what all these things are basically about)
Just watched a survivor of the latest Afghanistan atrocity - a young woman who said "all I want is to live lives in peace and go to college - too much to ask?
Not as far as I'm concerned
Any moron who believes that these attacks were made "on humanitarian grounds: " is a friggin' moron (but in this case, we knew that anyway
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Iains
Date: 22 Apr 18 - 10:03 AM

Jim I keep saying there are no angels in this confrontation. My interest is trying to unravel the truth. The reasons given in the mainstream media merely provide unverified pretexts for illegal actions. The way the novichok fiasco is unravelling lends credence to this belief.
Had russian counter missile defences really taken out all those missiles, what would that do to the stock of Lockeed and others of their ilk that thrive on the international arms trade? So what to make of competing claims as to who shot down what?
What to make of Genie Energy drilling illegally on the Golan Heights in stolen Syrian territory? What to make of America sitting on Syrian Energy sources?
Perhaps being a banker should be made a capital offence?

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Apr 18 - 10:44 AM

Still taking sides
Not interested

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Iains
Date: 22 Apr 18 - 06:28 PM

So you have no interest in the fact that thousands of people are being killed in a totally illegal war performed without UN sanction. A war carried out by the same coalition responsible for a death toll that exceeds largely unsubstantiated allegations of Assad's killings by hundreds of thousands. Your tunnel vision ideology leads you up some inhuman pathways.
   Nearly 50 years ago, Bob Dylan romped through a century of American warfare in his song “With God on Our Side.” From killing Indians to developing nuclear weapons, in Dylan’s view Americans acted with the hubris of knowing they had divine approval. After all, “You never ask questions / When God’s on your side.
    What were the justifications offered?
    Humanitarian in Libya
    Alleged WMD in Iraq
    Alleged Chemical weapons Syria

    Does the view above, eloquently expressed by Dylan, explain why you only assign guilt to one side?

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Apr 18 - 06:57 PM

"So you have no interest in the fact that thousands of people are being killed in a totally illegal war performed without UN sanction. "
I'm more interested that many thousands more have been systematically detained, torturesd and murdered for decades without the Us, the UN or Britain showing the slightest interest in stopping it - your refusal to discuss it is an indication that it doesn't disturb you in the slightest
The coalition was a product of the failure of anybody to do anything to stop it so when those same people who sat on their hands and did SFA while that was going on invade a country strikes me as unbelievably hypocritical
Waste of time my asking you to comment on that one (again)
Isis is our monster - we turned a group of interned cranks into a world threat and you want me to pick sides - no thanks
I watched the victims of the gas attacks being cleaned up by rescue teams - I've watched the survivors cradling their dead from Assad's slaughter of civilians for several years now, I read the daily stories of the massacres - particularly in Homs, I watched the series on the refugees who made it to Britain where survivors sporke over the telephone to their families back in Syria
Ths is probably the worst closely day-to-day reprted series of atrocities ever and you want me to worry about an attack that hasn't been sanctioned by the U.N. - are you for real?
One of the things I find most grotesque in all of this, and for that matter, of all wars, is that there are legal and illegal ways of slaughtering thousands and that all you have to so is get permission from a committee and you can invade anybosy.
For crying out loud - what kind of    Science-Fiction world are we living in.
I've made my point about the invasion - I'm against it, but that doesn't mean I'm taking sides, as you are
I will be surprised if you respond to any of this - you haven't so far
Jim Carrolll

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Apr 18 - 04:34 AM

Iains,
So you have no interest in the fact that thousands of people are being killed in a totally illegal war performed without UN sanction

What war is that Iains?

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Iains
Date: 23 Apr 18 - 05:35 AM

Keith if you need to be told I suggest you sign up for remedial classes.
It is estimated in excess of 400,000 Syrians have been killed. The media may call it a civil war, but there is plenty of evidence to
suggest it is a proxy war, initiated by the same people that destroyed Libya and Iraq.

With the added bonus of this and
that

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Apr 18 - 05:42 AM

I make your links Russian millionaire's Global Research and "not available"
"Why, why, why Delilah ?"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Iains
Date: 23 Apr 18 - 07:24 AM

"Why, why, why Delilah ?"
I am as confused as you! My original links are repeated below.
"A funny thing happened on the way to the forum"
here is the original.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/war-is-good-for-business-insider-trading-secret-information-and-the-us-led-attack-against-syria/5637056

and the second

https://www.blacklistednews.com/article/65342/missile-manufacturer-raytheons-value-rose-by-25-billion-immediately-following-the-syria.html

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Apr 18 - 07:31 AM

Iains, Syria is a civil war.
No Western country is engaged on either side.
Russia and Iran are heavily engaged on the side of Assad, otherwise he would not be winning.

So you have no interest in the fact that thousands of people are being killed in a totally illegal war performed without UN sanction

Not by us or any Western power.