Casually Red
tomorrow belongs to me
its fraud,a deliberate politically motivated attempt to deceive, like the Finucane one De Silva previously produced on cue . Not a series of unconnected innocent mistakes.
learn to spell
Last edited:
And next, Syria?
- Thread starter Idris2002
- Start date
its fraud,a deliberate politically motivated attempt to deceive, like the Finucane one De Silva previously produced on cue . Not a series of unconnected innocent mistakes.
learn to spell
Casually Red
tomorrow belongs to me
and some more odd details emerging with Carter Rucks report . Apparently for reasons best known to themselves theyve stamped the pages of the public report with confidential....twice . Every last page of Carter Rucks public report stamped confidential in big letters, twice.
Must be kosher then .
Must be kosher then .
Casually Red
tomorrow belongs to me
they tried to make it happen on the basis of those deliberately false claims. They told multiple deliberate lies to try and make it happen that are now being exposed by the MIT report , among other things. Disingenuous nonsense .
co-op
But....but cLoWnFiSh....
Oh-oh. It looks like you haven't understood what an ad hominem attack is.
If person x makes a claim and person x has a history of making claims that turn out to be wrong then pointing this out is not an ad hominem attack since it's relevant to the credibility of their claim.
likesfish
You can't park here sir
Assad forces being utter bastards they have previous napalming a school was seen by the bbc.
Jihadists and other rebels being equal bastards I can belive that as well.
Niether side is a good guy assad is a tyrant that comes form a small minority group that concentrated power opposition got you jail or dead.
Rebels mostly jihadist nutters now backed by the guld states
Jihadists and other rebels being equal bastards I can belive that as well.
Niether side is a good guy assad is a tyrant that comes form a small minority group that concentrated power opposition got you jail or dead.
Rebels mostly jihadist nutters now backed by the guld states
If the only evidence you have is person x's claim then yes.
co-op
But....but cLoWnFiSh....
An ad hominem attack is where what you say is irrelevant to the argument/evidence the other person is making. EG a labour councillor pointing at me (after my little speech) during a public meeting and saying "why would you listen to him? He lives in a squat".
But if person x has a history of making claims which turn out to be rubbish, pointing that out is directly relevant to their latest claim. Which is what CR has done here. Not an ad hominem.
Fuchs66
Ring a ding
But it still didn't happen no matter how much some may have wished it or not.
Casually Red
tomorrow belongs to me
What point is it your trying to make here ? That the western powers are good guys because they ALL attempted to launch yet another catastrophic war led by the United states on the basis of a compilation of deliberate lies about chemical weapons..but a lame duck president failed to garner enough domestic support for it in the whitehouse so the poodles chickened out ?
whats your point exactly ?
They concocted false evidence in an attempt to go to war...again . They are perfectly capable of pulling the same stunt again .
Fuchs66
Ring a ding
But they didn't!
Casually Red
tomorrow belongs to me
and your fucking point is what ?
Fuchs66
Ring a ding
My point is that you haven't got a point. You are still trying to argue from a position that is no longer reflected by the facts on the ground.
goldenecitrone
post tenebras lux
More evidence of war crimes committed by Assad and his cronies. Whole neighbourhoods demolished for supporting the opposition.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/30/syria-neighbourhoods-residents
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/30/syria-neighbourhoods-residents
Casually Red
tomorrow belongs to me
my point was and is that they are liars, the fact they havent yet gone to war on the basis of those lies doesnt make lies into truth, or make the lies disappear .
the fact is they lied in a failed attempt to go to war and are still using those lies as the basis for current threats to commit future acts of aggression . As the US state department is currently threatening once more .
The Zionist state has been practicing this policy for decades. Demolishing the homes of suicide bombers. No one seemed to care-but now that Assad is doing it-it's all all over the press.
Fuchs66
Ring a ding
co-op
But....but cLoWnFiSh....
You've got some proof about this? I don't watch the media that much these days but I haven't heard a dicky about the gas attacks for some time now and it's absolutely clear that if there was any decent proof linking it to Assad it would be shouted from the rooftops.
For me, now, western media silence = reasonable evidence that it was the opposition, not Assad.
Fuchs66
Ring a ding
Oh I'm very sure I would have noticed if the USA had decided to go to war in Syria.
Casually Red
tomorrow belongs to me
what has been pretty much proven by the independent MIT investigation is that the claims made by the US government that the evidence supposedly in their possession which proved the SAA launched the gas attack were completely false . And that their evidence showed no such thing . And while not specifically pointing the finger of blame at the jihadists it made clear there were significant grounds to suspect them of involvement .
Casually Red
tomorrow belongs to me
the US army did it on an industrial scale in vietnam, the British army did it on an industrial scale in Malaya, Kenya...actually theyd been doing it long before then . The zionists continue to do it as a matter of course, not just to suicide bombers families. The suicide bombings stopped years ago. Demolition of Arab homes certainly hasnt .
seventh bullet
sovietwave
The Americans and Diem government started the transfers to counter the early phase of the southern insurgency named by the Communists as Destruction of the Oppression (starting before the arrival of hundreds of thousands of US troops), which in part involved the Communists countering the government with their own 'combat hamlets.'
These were also resented by many peasants, although it didn't involve the villagers being forced to move like the government program. Well, they did move eventually, when USAF bombers started pummelling the countryside.
These were also resented by many peasants, although it didn't involve the villagers being forced to move like the government program. Well, they did move eventually, when USAF bombers started pummelling the countryside.
co-op
But....but cLoWnFiSh....
Well I'd say it's some evidence, but fair enough it's all gone very inter-power and if part of the deal is that Russia gets a certain percentage dibs on Syria, then maybe a line has been drawn and hence silence means nothing about what actually happened. But that's still making quite a few unknowable assumptions as well.
I've never argued that Assad wouldn't or didn't do it, just that the hysteria over it was so obviously part of a pre-invasion public relations campaign that to take any evidence that he did, especially the sort of garbage the media happily regurgitates, is daft.
co-op
But....but cLoWnFiSh....
Fuchs, I can't tell if you are being deliberately obtuse or just obscure. You posted "but they didn't!" in response to a post by CR quoted by you in which he said
in other words you were obviously referring to the evidence, false or otherwise. Now you're talking about whether the west launched an invasion. Dishonest posting.
It might be worth reading the actual MIT report you stupid macho fuckwit rather than simply repeating the Russia Today blogpost about it. It's not a peer-reviewed scientific study or investigation - it's a 32 page paper from a specific MIT working group that focuses on the technical details on whether that particular GRAD rocket is capable of being fired the distances the US claims it is. It's the work of two individuals, not "MIT's" opinion, and it concentrates on one particular technical aspect which due to it's narrow scope is no evidence at all of the dramatic conclusion you've reached - that the idea it was the Syrian Army is "completely false" .
The Russia Today blog you linked where the man who wrote the report was interviewed doesn't even make the claims your using it for, despite some desperate efforts on the behalf of the RT "journalist" to get the individual to say something along those lines. Check out this opening exchange:
Now firstly that's about as textbook an example of bad journalistic practice you're likely too see - using a leading question to elicit a particular answer from an interviewee in order to further the political agenda of the people and institutions that fund them (in this case the autocratic Russian state - hardly a neutral observer in this....) Why exactly a cold dispassionate scientist would agree to an interview with the state propaganda agency of one of the belligerents in the conflict I'm not sure either.
Now Casually Red says that this report "completely proves" the rebels faked/carried out the chemical weapons, whereas the author of the report Richard Lloyd disagrees and says otherwise. Now I know you're a dishonest lying cunt who'd make up any bullshit to defend your beloved Assad, but surely you couldn't believe you'd get away with that? You even provided the link to this quote yourself whilst claiming something the author went out of his way to distance himself from.
The focus of the report is that it's not possible for the SAA to have launched the rockets from the 6-7km range that the US stated but that 2km is the upper limit of their range due to various technical factors (involving drag wind resistence, all of which feature in the pdf but because they spend less than 100 words describing these processes and their effects it's hard to judge if they're right or not.) I would be more willing to accept their conclusions if this were a peer-reviewed study done in the normal manner. But it isn't - and doesn't claim to be. This doesn't prove anything. The weapons used (GRAD rockets) are not weapons the Syrian rebels have shown any inclination towards using, and no evidence has been presented that proves they either have them, know how to use them and even have the desire to use them. In my opinion if the Syrian rebels had GRAD rockets armed with chemical weapons and a battalion of soldiers trained to use them Assad would not be winning this war - he'd be dead. You can't have it both ways - the rebels are at the same time comically inept stooges of the Big Zionist Plot as well as being crack highly trained soldiers with access to heavy artillery capable of sophisticated and well timed chemical weapons attacks.
If you accept these conclusions in the report (and I don't because this hasn't been peer-reviewed yet - I might yet if they get a proper paper done) all it means is that the weapons were launched closer to the target than the original US claims. That's it. Nothing else. Syrian Army forces may have been unable to hold onto that territory in Eastern Ghouta despite several massive assaults, but they're not incapable of entering that area, as they outgun the rebels there and have access to armoured personnel carriers and tanks etc which makes moving around much simpler for the SAA than it does for the rebels (whose lack of heavy weapons, training, armored vehicles and fuel is what has lost them this war.)
And btw in-case you didn't know Casually Red peer-reviewed scientific papers aren't normally written in bright red bold font size 32. The whole "report" is a few hundred words that are mostly bullet point annotations to pictures and tables with little context. It also hasn't been properly spellchecked and contains numerous basic grammatical errors (in particular irregular capitalisation) that the entry 1 ESOL students I'm teaching at the moment would not make. Bold, italics, underlining and BLOCK CAPITALS FOR EMPHASIS aren't what I'd normally associate with reputable peer-reviewed scientific papers. For the benefit of others I'll put up the report we're on about and I'll put a proper scientific paper next to it for comparison purposes:
From the Stanford Journal of Natural Sciences http://www.stanford.edu/group/journ...ntent/uploads/2012/09/Tonelli_NatSci_2008.pdf
Your study https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documen...possible-implications-of-bad-intelligence.pdf
Not that any of this will change a damn thing. You're an enthusiastic and outspoken supporter of Assad and his regime. There's no crime they can commit no matter how heinous that you wouldn't excuse and apologise for. Mass torture? Chemical weapons? Collective punishment? Sectarian murder? Yup you've defended (and in some instances actively celebrated) these actions by the Assad government at various points in this thread.
So even if that means saying 2 + 2 = 5 you'll say it with a straight face and a clear conscience. Why bother thinking when you can simply uncritically spiel crude pro-Assad propaganda that a 5 year old could see through straight from the pages of Russia Today? Why bother exercising any independent thought as you simply bag-carry and excuse Russia imperialism? (for all your anti-imperialist rhetoric you seem to be a big fan of Russian imperialism, is this the hangover of some strain of Stalinist-apologism being applied crudely to Putin's Russia? Is Putin the leader of the global working class in your eyes?)
And it's absolutely right to point out that the basis of your hilarious conspiracy theory is that the west wanted a pretext to go war, therefore faked the whole incident with the help of the Syrian rebels, then once they successfully did this chose not to go to war. Now to someone who's not utterly ideologically committed to defending Assad no matter what he's done, someone who's politics aren't so childishly macho yet blood-soaked, this would be a major problem. But not for you!
As for the chemical weapons attack, I too was initially suspicious about it (mainly due to the timing) but unlike you I've based my opinion of what happened on the available evidence and weighing up of the probable options. You on the other hand have already reached a conclusion, that Assad is a wonderful man incapable of doing harm to his own people, and then simply search for any scrap of evidence (no matter how daft) to back up that assertion.
Now I don't care if you call yourself a socialist or an anti-imperialist because functionally you're no better than any fascist. Infact I think a source of your love for Assad is that much of Ba'athism ideologically derives from fascism, and that kind of fascist strongman stuff clearly appeals to the pubescent 12 year old's sense of machismo that runs like a current through all your politics. You'd be right at home in some national boslhevik type group. You are, after all, clearly to the right of the Tory party on practically every social issue, from gay marriage to immigration, and all that distinguishes you from the xenophobic homophobic macho UKIP shit is that you had the rotten luck to be born into a country where the conservative and nationalist traditions are bound by a history of anti-imperialist, which you feel it's your patriotic duty to pay lip-service too when sucking up to whichever bloodthirsty strongman dictator gives you the horn this week.
Now I'm not coming back to argue the toss - I'm busy with my life at the moment and I'm having a break from the forum - and quite frankly what's the point in arguing with someone who will never accept any facts if they get in the way of their perverse ideological convictions. For you Assad (and Putin, Gaddafi etc etc) can do no wrong and that's the position you'll stick to no matter how clear or undisputable the evidence is.
Last edited:
That's a PowerPoint presentation. One of the worst I've seen, and I've sat through too many.
And just the layout has the fruitloop-nature...
Right ok so this is a talk of some kind? Is there a paper, a scientific one that's been peer-reviewed (preferably by someone other than Russia Today) that I can look at? because that powerpoint is fucking terrible.
And yeah you're right it stinks of fruitloop but the guy has a proper academic position and the content of it doesn't seem to fruitloopery (even if many of the claims don't seem properly substantiated in the PP)
Fuchs66
Ring a ding
I was talking about the fact that the west did not invade despite CR's predictions and his insistence that they really, really wanted to but just didn't get round to it somehow.
Last edited:
Similar threads
