|
U-Know! Forum » What's going on in Syria? |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
phallus dei 583 posts |
Edited Apr 06, 2017, 16:32
Apr 06, 2017, 16:25
|
||
|
Assad, a leader who has shown considerable political skill surviving the attempts of the West and most of the ME to remove him for the past 6 years, suddenly decides to gas civilians a day after the Trump administration announces that America's policy is no longer "Assad must go." Hmm... Did Assad fool both the UN and John Kerry into previously thinking that the Syrian government had handed over all its chemical weapons? And if Assad still had CW, why use them at all, when they are less effective than bombs? Particularly, why use them now, when his government was already winning the war, and peace talks were scheduled with members of the "moderate" opposition? And now that Putin has said that he will still back Assad, what will happen to that Putin-Trump bromance we've been hearing so much about? So many questions... Here is former UK ambassador to Syria Peter Ford trying to make sense of the perplexing situation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pS6Oa_aDS6E
|
|||
|
dhajjieboy 913 posts |
Apr 06, 2017, 18:11
|
||
|
phallus dei wrote: Assad, a leader who has shown considerable political skill surviving the attempts of the West and most of the ME to remove him for the past 6 years, suddenly decides to gas civilians a day after the Trump administration announces that America's policy is no longer "Assad must go." Hmm... Did Assad fool both the UN and John Kerry into previously thinking that the Syrian government had handed over all its chemical weapons? And if Assad still had CW, why use them at all, when they are less effective than bombs? Particularly, why use them now, when his government was already winning the war, and peace talks were scheduled with members of the "moderate" opposition? And now that Putin has said that he will still back Assad, what will happen to that Putin-Trump bromance we've been hearing so much about? So many questions... Here is former UK ambassador to Syria Peter Ford trying to make sense of the perplexing situation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pS6Oa_aDS6E Every sentence you just typed is completely leading and couched in completely corralling rhetoric..... You already know exactly what you want as reply's. Poor showing old boy.
|
|||
|
phallus dei 583 posts |
Apr 07, 2017, 03:10
|
||
|
dhajjieboy wrote: phallus dei wrote: Assad, a leader who has shown considerable political skill surviving the attempts of the West and most of the ME to remove him for the past 6 years, suddenly decides to gas civilians a day after the Trump administration announces that America's policy is no longer "Assad must go." Hmm... Did Assad fool both the UN and John Kerry into previously thinking that the Syrian government had handed over all its chemical weapons? And if Assad still had CW, why use them at all, when they are less effective than bombs? Particularly, why use them now, when his government was already winning the war, and peace talks were scheduled with members of the "moderate" opposition? And now that Putin has said that he will still back Assad, what will happen to that Putin-Trump bromance we've been hearing so much about? So many questions... Here is former UK ambassador to Syria Peter Ford trying to make sense of the perplexing situation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pS6Oa_aDS6E Every sentence you just typed is completely leading and couched in completely corralling rhetoric..... You already know exactly what you want as reply's. Poor showing old boy. Are the questions I pose not the logical ones to be asking in such a circumstance? Is the opinion of the former UK ambassador to Syria not worth considering when it comes to Syria? Is Sky news also on your ever-growing list of Russian controlled media? You are right though, unless I hear a persuasive argument otherwise, my opinion about this issue is already formed: it's not what it seems.
|
|||
Howburn Digger 986 posts |
Edited Apr 07, 2017, 13:31
Apr 07, 2017, 13:30
|
||
|
It is NOT what it seems. The previous Sarin attacks in 2013 were blamed on the Assad Government. Then it turned out to be Sarin shipped in through Turkey and the weaponisation completed in ISIS occupied Syria by ISIS with technical support from its western backers (the Company and the Usual Suspects). The MSM went very quiet once this was revealed. Seymour Hersh wrote an excellent, lengthy explanation of Obama and Hillary's warmongering and inhuman involvement in the gassing of Syrian civilians. It was published in the London Review of Books. https://www.lrb.co.uk/v35/n24/seymour-m-hersh/whose-sarin The latest atrocity is without a doubt another attempt to smear Assad and create an excuse for US Military Industrial Complex involvement in rebooting a war which was reaching its closing stages.
|
|||
Locodogz 254 posts |
Apr 07, 2017, 14:55
|
||
|
So now that Trump has authorised the attack on Syria - what does that make him in your opinion? Member of the lizard sect, illuminati or still the maverick establishment outsider? Are you asserting that this latest chemical attack is the result of some US backed conspiracy, to allow the US to 'legitimise' a military action? Is Trump simply a stooge in all this?
|
|||
thesweetcheat 6210 posts |
Apr 07, 2017, 20:43
|
||
If only anyone knew, it's a muddy old picture that's for sure. But maybe the lesson from Iraq about the consequences of a regime-changing invasion on the basis of unclear or unreliable "intelligence" ought to lead to caution before irrevocable action.
|
|||
|
phallus dei 583 posts |
Edited Apr 07, 2017, 21:15
Apr 07, 2017, 21:14
|
||
|
Locodogz wrote: So now that Trump has authorised the attack on Syria - what does that make him in your opinion? Member of the lizard sect, illuminati or still the maverick establishment outsider? Are you asserting that this latest chemical attack is the result of some US backed conspiracy, to allow the US to 'legitimise' a military action? Is Trump simply a stooge in all this? Yes, I think the "chemical attack" was either staged by the terrorists themselves, or the result of the bombing of an ammo dump that unknowingly contained chemical weapons. Whether or not the terrorists received advice in their staged endeavors by their financial backers, I don't know. However, the result of their attack (Trump bombing Syria, thus ending any chance at an American - Russian rapprochement) certainly benefits the aspirations of the global elite, who profit from a perpetual state of War. My view of Trump was always that he was the best of two options. One was a career politician with plenty of blood on her hands, who - via her ghostwritten book "Tough Choices" - tried to present herself as to the right of Obama. The other was a non-politician who repeatedly condemned American foreign policy in the ME and called for closer ties with Russia. Naturally, I made the better choice out of the two. That option two has now apparently caved in to the establishment after two and a half months of valiant fighting is extremely disheartening. It looks like Trump will be the same as Obama, who was the same as Bush, who was the same as Clinton, who was the same as Bush. No doubt, the corporate media will love Trump now. At the end of the Cold War, there was a real chance that America and Russia could work together for the greater good. But no, America had to be greedy, and decided to Take It All.
|
|||
|
Howburn Digger 986 posts |
Apr 08, 2017, 13:14
|
||
|
This Daily Mail report from solid sources was published in Jan 2013. It has since been pulled from their website. It explains exactly how a chemical attack on Syria was planned and backed by US and Britain and then blamed on Assad as a justification for military action. That time it failed when an investigation discovered that the chemical weapons were used by the US-backed ISIS (AKA "moderate rebels"). http://web.archive.org/web/20130130091742/http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2270219/U-S-planned-launch-chemical-weapon-attack-Syria-blame-Assad.html This time in 2017 no investigation was done. You couldn't make it up.
|
|||
|
dhajjieboy 913 posts |
Apr 08, 2017, 14:31
|
||
|
The 'Daily Mail'.... I know that Head Heritage is a dead man walking when tabloid fodder is offered up as substantiation in any topic of interest. Does it occur to you that the Daily Mail pulled that story because of it's utter lack of credibility? Take off your tin-foil hat.
|
|||
|
phallus dei 583 posts |
Edited Apr 08, 2017, 14:42
Apr 08, 2017, 14:40
|
||
|
dhajjieboy wrote: The 'Daily Mail'.... I know that Head Heritage is a dead man walking when tabloid fodder is offered up as substantiation in any topic of interest. Does it occur to you that the Daily Mail pulled that story because of it's utter lack of credibility? Take off your tin-foil hat. Just a few posts up in this very thread Howburn Digger linked to an analysis published in the London Review of Books which argued that the Sarin used in the 2013 Chemical Attack didn't come from Assad, but from Turkey. That article hasn't been pulled, as of yet. Perhaps if we gear up for another war, it will be.
|
| Pages: 6 – [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
