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

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Apr 18 - 11:21 AM

"We will take down the border and we will tear out their hearts from their bodies"
Are you seriously suggesting that a bunch of unarmed Gazan protestors are capable of fulfilling such a threat - or that they consider that hey could do it?
You stretch our credulity way beyond the limit
The Isreali armed forces are well trained and well armed with the latest weapons - and nuclear facilitated
The best the protesters have come up with so far are catapults
This excuse is as old as Lidice
If I had seen our homes and hospitals hospiatls razed to the ground, our wives and children murdered and our land taken from us as often as the Palestinians have this is exactly the kind of threat I would make
You are transparent in your defence of the indefensible Bobad
A SELF-HATING view of the conflict
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Apr 18 - 11:30 AM

ANOTHER "SELF-HATING" JEWISH VIEW
jIM cARROLL

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Iains
Date: 18 Apr 18 - 12:19 PM

Keith surely you do not expect me to believe something just because it is in Wiki?
As an example of an OPCW report:
The release of sarin at Khan Shay khun on 4 April 2017.basically comes down to the sarin probably belonged to the Syrian Arab Republic.
The crater was probably formed by a bomb rather than IED
Syrian Arab aircraft were in the vicinity that day, therefore they are probably the guilty party.


Probably does not equate with unequivocally!

Extracted from United Nations /2017/904
Security Council
26 October 2017
Letter dated 26 October 2017 from the Secretary General
addressed to the President of the Security Council

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Apr 18 - 02:41 PM

Keith surely you do not expect me to believe something just because it is in Wiki?

No. Tell me which bits you question and I will provide chapter and verse.

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Iains
Date: 18 Apr 18 - 03:32 PM

Keith I have no problem with the OPCW methodology of taking samples and sending them to independent labs for verification. I have carried out the same procedure myself in the past for base metal content in soil samples. It is a pretty standard procedure if you want to crosscheck results. The primary function of the OPCW is identification of chemicals. The problem arises when determining who manufactured the chemicals and who was in charge of the delivery system? Two very different things. You also need to consider were the attacks targeting
terrorists or civilians? You also need to consider the impartiality of the inspectors on the ground and their qualifications for accurate analysis of a hole in the ground and attributing it to specific munitions. I am sure Assad probably has used chemicals in the past, but were they deliberately targeting non combatants? The Syrian Iraqi
border is porous and munitions can come in from everywhichwhere, including liberated government stockpiles. If the crazies line people up to chop off heads, they obviously have little compunction in gassing civilians wholesale, in order to deceive.
Having read a number of the reports some are emphatic in assigning blame, some are shall we say Dubious. As a battlefield scenario gassing your own people in the winning stages is the hallmark of stupidity and fits no sort of rationale.

I wonder why coalition use of white phosphoros in in densely populated areas of Mosul and in the Islamic State's de facto capital of Raqqa, does not raise the same levels of opprobrium on the (western)World Stage? The mainstream media can suffer very selective amnesia at times!

Many times I largely agree with you, but this time around the propagandists have hijacked the narrative and you are falling for it.

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Apr 18 - 04:21 AM

Ians,
Assad probably has used chemicals in the past, but were they deliberately targeting non combatants?

Even if civilians were not targeted the use of chemical weapons is banned by international law.

I wonder why coalition use of white phosphoros....

WP is not an illegal weapon.
It is illegal to target civilians with anything.

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Iains
Date: 19 Apr 18 - 05:29 AM

WP is not an illegal weapon. Not strictly true. It depends on the nature of the weapon containing it and if civilian areas are being targeted.
It is forbidden for use against civilians as well as legitimate military targets that happen to be in a major civilian population center if the munition is delivered by air. This is due to its incendiary effect.( I do not fully comprehend the air bit. grenade, shell, bomb, rocket all arrive by air and if an IED kills or injures civilians it is still illegal) As white phosphorus is pyrophoric it keeps burning until used up and can cause horrendous injuries. The staus of white phosphorus is disputed.


Israeli Manual on the Rules of Warfare (2006), which explains:

A chemical weapon is a weapon intended to work on the systems of life and is constituted from a substance that causes a chemical reaction in the body expressed in such symptoms as asphyxiation, burning, weeping, etc., whereas phosphorous is an element in nature which reacts to the oxygen in the air by catching fire. In that respect, phosphorous is no different from petrol (gasoline) reacting to a lighted match, and what differentiates it from chemical weapons is that its reaction is not directed against the human physiology in particular, it will burn whatever it touches. (so that's ok then!That is one hell of a justification!)

I have no doubt water is a chemical weapon when used for waterboarding!

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Apr 18 - 07:36 AM

I have no doubt water is a chemical weapon when used for waterboarding!

It does not rely on its chemistry for its effect, and waterboarding is a form of torture not warfare.

WP is not an illegal weapon.

It is forbidden for use against civilians as well as legitimate military targets that happen to be in a major civilian population center

That is true of all weapons, not just WP.

. The staus of white phosphorus is disputed.

By who? WP is not an illegal weapon. Chlorine and Sarin, both confirmed to have been used by Assad, are.

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Iains
Date: 19 Apr 18 - 12:15 PM

Keith; The arguments laid out quite thoroughly.

I draw your attention to the "shake at bake" testimony included. Drive opponents out of their trenches with phosphorus and blow them to pieces with HE.(After-Action Review (AAR) for the Battle of Fallujah, ¶9b, reprinted in FIELD ARTILLERY 23, 26 (Mar.-Apr. 2005)

https://sites.duke.edu/lawfire/2016/09/29/white-phosphorus-sometimes-can-be-lawfully-employed-as-an-anti-personnel-weaponbut-sho

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Apr 18 - 01:05 PM

Charlie Dunlap, J.D. may dispute that WP use is always legal, but under international law WP is not an illegal weapon.

Chlorine and Sarin are.

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Iains
Date: 19 Apr 18 - 01:35 PM

I think we could argue at cross purposes for ever. It seems a pretty artificial distinction to me. High explosive is a chemical as is Uranium235. It is bit of an argument over semantics in reality, rather like barrel bombs. A bomb is a bomb, is a bomb.
The actual wording below is far from precise.
https://www.opcw.org/chemical-weapons-convention/articles/article-ii-definitions-and-criteria/

http://en.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13940721001520
Will the OPCW be in any rush to check out the above?

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Apr 18 - 02:30 PM

"When used properly in open areas, white phosphorus munitions are not illegal, but the Human Rights Watch report concludes that the IDF repeatedly exploded it unlawfully over populated neighborhoods, killing and wounding civilians and damaging civilian structures, including a school, a market, a humanitarian aid warehouse, and a hospital. "
HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH

The Lancet
"White phosphorus burn
Loai Nabil Al Barqouni'Correspondence information about the author Loai Nabil Al BarqouniEmail the author Loai Nabil Al Barqouni
, Sobhi I Skaik, FRCSEd
, Nafiz R Abu Shaban, MSc
, Nabil Barqouni, CABP
Published: 03 July 2010
In January, 2009, an 18-year-old man presented to the emergency department after suffering an attack with an incendiary shell. He had many painful patches of full-thickness burns, which were surrounded by sloughed tissue. His wounds covered 30% of his body surface area, and were distributed on both upper and lower limbs, and his right shoulder. There were no signs of inhalation burns. After a clinical diagnosis of white phosphorus burns was made, the airway was secured, resuscitation fluid was initiated, and wounds were irrigated with diluted sodium bicarbonate solution before wet dressing."
The Lancet 2010
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/09/19/saudi-arabia-appears-to-be-using-u-s-supplied-white-phosphorus-in-its-war-in-yemen/?utm_term=.1cf789864178

UK USED W P in IRAQ

If White Phosphorus is not a banned weapon if ***** well should be

Now let's hear the excuses
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Apr 18 - 02:51 PM

I CONFESS
White Phosphorus FAMILY ALBUM
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Iains
Date: 19 Apr 18 - 03:56 PM

Jim I do not doubt that any rational person would like to see chemical weapons banned. But to play high and mighty with the Syrian regime while ignoring fully documented cases among our "allies" rings a little hollow. The greatest remaining declared stockpile of such weapons is in the US.
I think the playing field needs to be leveled and the impartiality of OPCW reports insisted on. More than a few conclusions are based on circumstantial rather than actual evidence. As I said earlier, the language of these reports needs to be studied carefully.

If the same level of publicity was given to alleged Saudi transgressions in the Yemen, as those in Syria,I might have more confidence in the present system. The terrorists in Syria are also guilty. How often is that fact given publicity? The only devil incarnate is Assad according to the heavily biased mainstream media.

It seems to me the bias in reporting is "encouraged" and is merely a device to enable further acts of war against Syria. Such future action should be clearly permitted by UN agreement.
The existing inspection regime is clearly not working properly.
https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/cbwprolif

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Apr 18 - 05:07 PM

I agree with that.

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Apr 18 - 07:44 PM

And though I'm Peter Hitchens' number seven-billion fan, he was absolutely spot on tonight on This Week in demanding evidence for the alleged chemical attacks in Syria. I promise to fall out with him again very quickly...

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Apr 18 - 08:02 PM

"The greatest remaining declared stockpile of such weapons is in the US."
Can't disagree with that Iains - that's why I would never use the term "U.S." and "allies" in the same sentence, but it really isn't as simple as that and it most certainly doesn't let Assad off the hook
The U.S, has survived and an international power by drawing support from history's monsters - Batista in Cuba who turned the Island into "America's open sewer" where American tourists went to watch Cuban girls being screwed by animals, Papa Doc's Haiti, kept in order by the killer, Tonton Macoute, South Vietnam's Hitler admiring Marshal Nguyen Cao Ky, mass killer and torturer, Augusto Pinochet, armed financed and supported by the CIA....
All these were "safe pairs of hands" for the U.S., though in moments of weakness it was admitted, "they may be monsters, but they're OUR OUR MONSTERS"
I believe Assad to be one of these - pointing at the crimes of the U.S. in so way changes that fact
"Terrorists"
Terrorism is a fact of all major conflicts - it is a tactic used in every war by the weakest groups against the stronger- Trotsky wrote a fascinating pamphlet on the subject - (no - I am not a Trot) - one sides term is "terrorism" - the other side's "guerilla warfare"
Isis is a terrorist group with aims far beyond the downfall of the Assad regime, though many of their supporters were drawn in because of the vacuum left by the West's inaction - indifference even.
In the long run, the interests of the people as a whole over-ride all this - nothing will ever erase the Assad family's record on that one.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Donuel
Date: 19 Apr 18 - 08:10 PM

In the US we do not have this debate in the media whatsoever.

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Iains
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 03:50 AM

"The U.S, has survived as an international power by drawing support from history's monsters"

"Isis is a terrorist group with aims far beyond the downfall of the Assad regime, though many of their supporters were drawn in because of the vacuum left by the West's inaction - indifference even."

The first statement true to an extent.
The second statement perhaps a total distortion! The truth is likely far murkier. There are many rumours about support for Isis from "unlikely???" sources. Below a typical example of such   heinous lies?

https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/isis-was-state-sponsored-by-us-allies-says-former-government-intelligence-analyst-exclus

add the article below to the p(l)ot, and where oh where is the truth???

http://theduran.com/stunning-coincidence-chlorine-containers-from-germany-and-smoke-bombs-manufactured-in-salisbury-skripal-pois

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 04:19 AM

In order for the evidence that has mounted up against both Assad and Russia to be a 'conspiracy'. the conspirators would have to have a massive, well-oiled conspiracy-machine consisting of propagandists, scientists, acting teachers to rehearse the witnesses, finances to bribe the Human Rights groups, rescue teams, journalists....... regular meetings in order to be singing from one hymn sheet.... a world wide conspiracy organisation in fact
When you watch Trump publicly arm-wrestling with Stormy Daniels and attempting to suppress her ****-and-tell information in the cack-handed way he is you realise how unlikely that is.
Russia has been behaving in the ruthless manner it has since the fall of Communism, it has become as sophisticated corrupt as any other "free, decent and democratic" country
These is the way these countries have always operated against their enemies - Britain included, and certainly the U.S, (100 failed assassination attempts on Castro and a record of successful ones on other 'inconvenients')
It is well within Russia's capabilities to have carried out what i is accused of and there is no reason for them not to have done so.
I watched the Labour Party representative on Question Time last night giving what I presume what is the party line on the American-led raid
She said she believed that Russia and Assad were guilty of what they were accused of, but in order to prevent it happening again it was necessary to nail the evidence first - makes sense to me!
The waar against Iis appears to have been won, but Assad has yet to extract his revenge on those who opposed him - and he will - he cannot afford not to
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 04:20 AM

It seems a pretty artificial distinction to me.

To the rest of the world the Geneva Conventions on the conduct of war were a triumph for humanity.
Wars are still horrific but suffering has been reduced thanks to that achievement.

If we say anything goes just because we can not abolish all war and all weaopnry we take a huge step backwards.

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Iains
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 04:26 AM

The Geneva convention is ignored by terrorists. How is the modern world going to deal with that? Use Daleks perhaps?

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 04:30 AM

Can't open your first link Iaians but I hope its's more convincing than your untraceable blog
These arguments need to move beyond throwing blogs at each other and have to take a long view over what is happening taking whole picture into consideration
Frankly, I'm tired of conspiracy theorists accusing other conspiracy theorists of conspiracy theories
It reduces the whole ting to a Mad Comics CARTOON STRIP
DR Strangelove was always the one that rang my bells
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 04:43 AM

Ians and Steve,
The Geneva convention is ignored by terrorists. How is the modern world going to deal with that? Use Daleks perhaps?

Terrorists ignore all the rules, especially in their treatment of civilians.
That is not an argument for the civilised world to abandon the rules too.

We have added to those 20th Century achievements, banning landmines for instance.
Do you two oppose that as well?

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 05:10 AM

"The Geneva convention is ignored by terrorists."
The Geneva convention and human rights laws are ignored by anybody when it suits them
Go look at the number of vetoes used by the US to defend mass- murder, then go count the number of illegally held 'suspects' in Guantanamo
There have been calls from one "democratic country" to close down the International Human Rights courts rather than face trial for its crimes
Blaming terrorists for what they all do is a little shallow
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 05:41 AM

The Geneva convention and human rights laws are ignored by anybody when it suits them

Not true. Breaches of Geneva convention are war crimes. War criminals are brought to justice.

What acts of "mass murder" has the world ignored US veto or not?

illegally held 'suspects' in Guantanamo

The problem is that no country will take them.

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 06:17 AM

No intention of entering into a dialogue to respond to your nonsense Keith - Guantanamo was a human rights abuse from day one and remains so
America will never be punished for any of its long history of and continuing war crimes so it is the last state in the world to lead an attack a country committing war crimes that measure small compared to their own
Response to you, over

What needs to be considered is why any of these wars are taking place
Isis arose from the West's refusal to act on appalling crimes against the people of Syria
A positive response to the Arab Spring Protests could have secured genuine change throughout the Arab World, but that did not suit the West's need for an uninterrupted flow of oil and a source of cheap goods for our shops
Not interfering in a "Civil War" is utter bullshit
The same people who were describing intervening in Assad's massacre of his people as "fascism" answer now up on their soap-boxes praising the heroes who flew in and bombed Assad a week ago - twisted logic or an indication of what this is really about
Are chemical weapons that we find horrendous enough to go to war for really that much worse than the many thousands of Assad's opponents who were rounded up, tortured and "disappeared"?
If humanity is the cause of intervening now, why did we vote down the idea of intervening when Assad's snipers were offering a packet of fags to each sniper who could kill a woman and a child with a single bullet on the streets of Homs - and why have those who support this intervention changed their minds?
Rhetorical question - whatever our leaders do is the right thing to some people as long as their shade of politics is "RIGHT"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 06:44 AM

War crimes are never "brought to justice" when they are committed, or alleged to have. Been committed, by countries such as the UK or the USA. They aren't even brought to court. The only countries, or rulers, who are put in the dock are from countries which have been militarily defeated.

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Iains
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 06:44 AM

"War criminals are brought to justice."
Was not going to war on the basis of mythical WMD not a criminal act?
Seems to me it was the innocents received the punishment. Bush and Blair still strut the world stage.

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 06:54 AM

Jim,
Are chemical weapons that we find horrendous enough to go to war for really that much worse than the many thousands of Assad's opponents who were rounded up, tortured and "disappeared"?

No, but because we can not achieve everything is no reason not to act where we can achieve.
Obama rightly made use of chemical weapons a red line.

McGrath,
committed, by countries such as the UK or the USA. They aren't even brought to court.

British and US soldiers have been convicted in their own countries.

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 08:15 AM

"Was not going to war on the basis of mythical WMD not a criminal act?"
Absolutely - has there ever been any question of this?
"Bush and Blair still strut the world stage. "
You just said it all Iains
The crass dishonesty of people who defend their Governments right or wrong has just been illustrated perfectly by our resident eejit suggesting that it was acceptable to keep suspects chained up in cages dressed in boiler suits because "no country will take them."
This is the feller who defended obvious serial rapists, pedophiles and sexual predators because they hhad not been tried therefore they were innocent until proven guilty despite their long history of offenses
The man chained up in cages in the boiling sun have never been tried, no evidence has ever been produced against them therefor they are innocent so THEY SHOULD BE PERFECTLY FREE TO RETURN TO THEIR OWN HOMES
Sheessh!!!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 08:23 AM

IDF Commander: We Fired More Than a Million Cluster Bombs in Lebanon

Phosphorous and cluster bombs heavily used; unexploded munitions litter wide area of Lebanon.

This was a Haaretz article just after the war in 2006 (sorry, you'll have to google it). For those who still think that "decent democracies" don't do such things. Then there's those fighter jets we're selling to Saudi Arabia. Politics before people every time.

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 09:04 AM

Cluster bombs were legal then, and WP still is.

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 10:26 AM

Landmines were legal once as were many chemicals
The fact that they were permissible does not lessen the inhumanity of those who use them and hiding behind a law makes those who advocate it makes them equally inhuman
We are talking about acts of inhumanity against third war civilians and laws that are passed by those who wage those wars and give themselves permission to wage those wars in any way they see convenient
It's about time we discusses these events in human terms rather than whot politicians decide is permissible or not

Fairly recent report on the use of CLUSTER BOMBS , including by major CUSTOMERS FOR BRITAINS WEAPONS
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Iains
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 10:46 AM

Cicero wrote: "Silent enim leges inter arma".

Approx. I million died in Vietnam during the late war.
Credible estimates of Iraq War casualties range from 150,000 to 460,000. Other highly disputed estimates, such as the 2006 Lancet study, and the 2007 Opinion Research Business survey, put the numbers as high as 650,000 and 1.2 million respectively

The death toll in Libya when Nato intervened was perhaps around 1,000-2,000 (judging by UN estimates), eight months later it was probably more than ten times that figure. Estimates of the numbers of dead over the following eight months – as Nato leaders vetoed ceasefires and negotiations – range from 10,000 up to 50,000. The National Transitional Council puts the losses at 30,000 dead and 50,000 wounded.
In Syria nearly 1/2 million killed.
During the war in Afghanistan (2001–present), over 31,000 civilian deaths due to war-related violence have been documented; 29,900 civilians have been wounded. Over 111,000 Afghans, including civilians, soldiers and militants, are estimated to have been killed in the conflict
In Yemen 10,000 people have died as a result of the war, over 5,000 of them have been civilians.(That is likely a very low and inaccurate figure.) Cholera and malnutrition add to the death toll.

Moderation has been another casualty in this struggle for power. The wars have resulted in increased Muslim hostility, jihadism and radicalisation. Hard-liners have prevailed, while moderates are marginalised and silenced.
There is Nothing for the WEST TO BE PROUD OF IN THESE CONFLICTS.

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 11:06 AM

So you all think war is bad.
Do you imagine anyone disagrees?

Ians,
There is Nothing for the WEST TO BE PROUD OF IN THESE CONFLICTS.

You are just anti the West, and our dominant Far-Left Mudcat group happily support you in that.
Russia was in Afghanistan too, and has nothing to be proud of in any of its foreign adventures.

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 11:19 AM

Did I just read somebody daft enough to type..

"Ians........
You are just anti the West, and our dominant Far-Left Mudcat group happily support you in that."

hysterical.... that's got to be laugh of the day...!!!

bring on a sunny spring weekend of rifts between right wingers....


Of course, even though I am a far lefty extremist [even though I'm not really...]
what I observe lately
is Iains being very pro intelligent informed critical analysis,
and t'other chap being very pro stupid clump headed bigotted denouncements.....

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 11:23 AM

I've called Iains many things, often sotto voce, often not, but I've never called him "Ians."

Anyway, Iains, come and join the most moderate bunch of extremists you've ever met! Just gotta get you onside over brexit now... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Raggytash
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 11:31 AM

No change there then Steve, I just surprised that Iains (note the spelling) is still jumping through hoops.

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 11:36 AM

"You are just anti the West, and our dominant Far-Left Mudcat group"
You are responding to nothing here with a shred of humanity or intelligence - are you surprised that nobody wants to talk to you
If we wanted the establishment view we would wait for the next election and listen to their party political broadcasts
You are an arse-licking establishment moron
I find myself pleasantly surprised in totally agreeing with Iains - welcome to the "far-left" - we'll share a cell when Keith gets hus UN - British Activities Trials underway
What a flag-wagging tosser!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 12:08 PM

All together now... Patriotic British far left extremists unite in song...

Rule Britannia & Jeruselam

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 12:41 PM

Iains posts from a pro-Putin position.
Although Russia has dropped any pretence of socialism, the far-Left still support him because he stands against the West.

I read that a lot of pro-Russian posters have appeared on internet forums lately.

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 12:56 PM

"Although Russia has dropped any pretence of socialism, the far-Left still support him because he stands against the West."


Looks like I've not been checking the latest edition of the Far Left Handbook...!!!???

Sorry, I didn't realise I was supposed to be supporting Putin..

I'd better pull my finger out and get on with supporting the nasty criminal dictator rotter immediately...!!!

Putin Putin rah rah rah...!!!!!

...there.. will that do...?????

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 01:08 PM

When I was in my militant trade unionist prime and associating ill-advisedly with various far-left groups, one curious thing I noticed about them was that they all hated Russia. If you were a barrister defending a murderer in court, it would be ridiculous for anyone to claim that you were pro-murderer. You'd simply be pro-evidence. Proper evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Iains
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 02:14 PM

Keith from the way you take the "party" line in this thread it is obvious that you believe the politicians every time.
The intervention in Libya ostensibly was on humanitarian grounds. The ensuing death toll suggests that the stated aim was not achieved.
But if you follow the munneee a different, far more plausible scenario, unfolds. NATO intervention may have been motivated by Gaddafi's attempts to establish a unified federation of African states that would use the gold dinar as its currency and demand that foreign importers of African oil pay in gold. (What does that do to the almighty dollar?)
Iraq was invaded for a number of reasons, The WMD angle was merely a pretext. A summary is here
reasons
Syria. A spontaneous uprising mutating into a civil war we are told.
Well here is another view:
http://democratic-syria.blogspot.ie/2012/08/the-arab-spring-spontaneous-public.html

I can assure you that I simply do not believe these events developed as we are led to believe. It is not a fight for people's rights, it is a battle to subdivide and conquer. The people on top of the sand are not the issue, the oil under the sand is! Syria is stalling a pipeline route for Saudi oil and Quatari gas straight to europe.

If I was cynical I would say Afghanistan is a part of the equation too. Some would argue the opium is a cash crop for the CIA. When I was in Singapore in the early to mid 70's there were many Bird Air, Air America and other dodgy transports cluttering up the tarmac at Seletar , and the Golden Triangle was a hop skip and jump up the road.(Coincidence?) The old Gil's Grill in the Shaw center on Orchard road hosted a variety of strange people beside the oilfield and I used to hear some totally outlandish tales there, some of them likely based on reality.

Having had a bit of a wandering life I tend to treat official stories with permanently raised eyebrows. The world simply does not work the way the media would have us believe. As I repeatedly say(to no avail)yes/no, black/white rarely exists. The truth resides in a grey fog. I have no idea what the true story is most of the time, but my "bullshit " detector is highly developed and generally points in the vague direction of what actually happened. The only certainty is that the pretext for starting wars is generally false.(not always,   but usually)
There is a saying "All wars are Banker's Wars" The arguments in support are quite strong.

In conclusion Russia, China and Iran are dumping the dollar for oil purchases. Western(American) Bankers will not take kindly to that!
You appear to reside in the perfect as opposed to the actual world.

I think a cursory study of the Iran Contra affair is a lesson in the perfidy of politicians and their underlings.

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 02:54 PM

Whoops
Personally, I'd rather go with ENCYCLOPÆDIA BRITANNICA than an anonymous blogger Iains
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Iains
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 03:36 PM

You pays your money, you make your choice.
Do you think wikileaks is a tissue of lies, or a devilish mix of fact and propaganda(by the time we get to see it)?
Is Assange a hero or a criminal?
They say history is written by the winners! Is encyclopedia brittanica not writing history on the given subject? True or false?

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Iains
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 05:13 PM

The official story on the Gulf of Tonkin Incident was later   shown to be a pack of lies, as a pretext for escalating the Vietnam War.

The true story of the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty is still murky.
A BBC documentary suggests the Israeli attack would be blamed on the Egyptians to give the US an excuse to attack Egypt. The true story is still hidden in layers of conflicting narrative, and the fact no clear unambiguous explanation has emerged suggests collusion and hankypanky still holds sway.

The MyLai massacre was covered up for 18months before hitting headlines. 3 US servicement who tried to protect civilians were shunned, and even denounced as traitors by several U.S. Congressmen, including Mendel Rivers, Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. Only after thirty years were they recognized and decorated, one posthumously, by the U.S. Army for shielding non-combatants from harm in a war zone.

Truth is an elusive beast and takes time to surface, sometimes it never does!
Just three examples.There are many others. Each is a can of worms.
Surely no one ever takes anything purely on trust anymore?

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 06:19 PM

"Do you think wikileaks is a tissue of lies"
Mixed
- Assange gave information we needed dd to have as did my hero Mordechai Vanunu
I prefer Wikileaks to unnamed blogs - but in the end, you need to find out what you can and maker up your own mind
Amnesty and Human Rights Watch work every time for me - unbiased and independent
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: If Russia didn't do it..?
From: robomatic
Date: 20 Apr 18 - 08:08 PM

Last night the Alex Jones show was casting aspersions about the cause of the gas attacks and freely quoting RT as a source, (straight from Putin).