webdiplomacy.net

Here’s an article detailing Russia’s allegations: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/russia-acc ... ack-syria/

According to Russia, the White Helmets staged the attack with help from the British intelligence community, and they found stockpiles of chemical weapons in rebel territory after they evacuated.

That's weird. It's almost like the White Helmets aren't trustworthy, non-partisan actors.

Here's more allegations from Syria about chemical weapon factories being found in formerly rebel-controlled East Ghouta.

https://sputniknews.com/news/2018041310 ... ab-ghouta/

leon1122 wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 13, 2018 9:50 pm

James, I still need a source on Assad admitting that there was a chemical attack. All the sources I have read say that both Syria and Russia claim that the attack was staged, and Russia has now officially blamed the UK for staging the attack.

This is what I get for staying up too late, I could have sworn he admitted one happened a while back but i can't find it now.

retraction made, sorry about that, I'm falling into my own trap of reading things and not immediately finding sources

Lol. Blaming the UK for the attack. That's about as frank an admission from Russia that it was either Syria or Russia as one could expect.

The UK has been deliberately antagonistic towards Russia for a long time now, accusing them of many things that later turned out to be false.

I wonder if this will turn out to have been following that same pattern.

leon1122 wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 13, 2018 10:18 pm

Here’s an article detailing Russia’s allegations: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/russia-acc ... ack-syria/

According to Russia, the White Helmets staged the attack with help from the British intelligence community, and they found stockpiles of chemical weapons in rebel territory after they evacuated.

Just a hypothetical here. But suppose you take this line of logic, and believe Russia. The attack was staged with the help of British intelligence because the West wanted a reason to make Russia look bad.

There are a number of assumptions you have to make there. Surely you must at least admit to that. Now, ask yourself. Are those assumptions 1) Less numerous and 2) More believable than the alternative theory that Assad did it, and then planted stockpiles of chemical weapons once they controlled the territory so they could blame it on the rebels.

If GB/USA/F has chosen 3-4 mid level players on the site I am sure they would stage this chemical attack in smarter way. Someone should be fired for doing very bad job.

I haven't read the thread but if anyone looks at all the evidence and motives and such, and thinks Assad was behind this are either stupid or blinded by American Patriotism in my personal opinion. How many wars on false pretenses does America need to start before Americans start doubting their government's excuses to blow up the middle east?

Not surprised to see Ogion supporting his warmongering government blindly. Typical leftist.

Did we learn nothing from Libya? Afghanistan? Iraq? So many others?

Next Assad will be "taking the babies from their incubators" then the war will be really justified.

Okay, Flum. Please present your evidence it wasn't Assad.

The last year's chemical attack they blamed on Assad ironically had no evidence as well upon closer investigation. Why are they rushing in so quick this time when countries like Canada, Germany, and others were asking for more of an investigation? They were wrong last time. Maybe they're wrong this time?

I just felt like ranting. I can post a more reasonable argument when I'm at a computer lol.

goldfinger0303 wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 14, 2018 4:45 am

Surely you must at least admit to that. Now, ask yourself. Are those assumptions 1) Less numerous and 2) More believable than the alternative theory that Assad did it, and then planted stockpiles of chemical weapons once they controlled the territory so they could blame it on the rebels.

They sure are, and if you can’t see that, then I can only assume, like Fluminator, that you’re blinded by blind patriotism.

Fluminator wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 14, 2018 8:28 pm

Did we learn nothing from Libya? Afghanistan? Iraq? So many others?

What do you learn, Flum?

In Iraq we went all in and shit happened
In Libya we heavily supported rebel groups and shit happened
In Syria we largely stood back and left them to it and shit happened

Aside from shit happens, what is the lesson?

Octavious wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 14, 2018 9:47 pm

Fluminator wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 14, 2018 8:28 pm

Did we learn nothing from Libya? Afghanistan? Iraq? So many others?

What do you learn, Flum?

In Iraq we went all in and shit happened
In Libya we heavily supported rebel groups and shit happened
In Syria we largely stood back and left them to it and shit happened

Aside from shit happens, what is the lesson?

In Syria, we stood back, Assad is regaining control over his country, potentially bringing stability back to the region. It don't classify that as "shit". It's the best outcome we can hope for.

Holy shit! Russia predicted the false flag attack 3 weeks in advance!
https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/984088307507388418

It also appears that the chemical attack from last year still has no evidence
http://www.newsweek.com/now-mattis-admi ... ple-801542

Further proof that the US is just itching for an excuse to go to war.

This strike was cleared with the Russians well in advance.

Nothing was really damaged. Three people are reported dead. That is barely even possible in a missile strike on a city. No mission critical Syrian assets were even scratched.

The Russian response was non existent. No antimissile elements were deployed. Everyone buttoned down nice and cozy like for a thunderstorm they saw coming the day before on radar.

The timing was perfect for distracting from Trumps mind boggling legal problems. It is obvious that Trump cleared this Potemkin charade with Putin first.

goldfinger0303 wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 14, 2018 8:34 pm

Okay, Flum. Please present your evidence it wasn't Assad.

ehm... from what I know from some TV series, first we have to have a good accusation, and then a defense.
I mean if I say you have some cocaine in your house, that's my problem to first obtain an order from a judge based on some real evidence. And then, you can defend yourself.
Here is different, first we have someone saying there was a chemical attack, then we have the reaction with some missile and only after it we discover that someone is still trying to verify if there even was a chemical attack.

You can think everything about Assad, but he's not stupid. He is still there after many years of civil war and why on earth would he use chemical weapons in a city almost freed from terrorists? Please don't say because he wants to seem strong. He can do this later...

Fluminator wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 14, 2018 8:22 pm

How many wars on false pretenses does America need to start before Americans start doubting their government's excuses to blow up the middle east?

The next one will be always the penultimate.
As Colin Powell said at the UN with a test tube full of white powder: -"Remember the Maine! To hell with Syria."