Paphos Life

Varky wrote: ↑Mon Apr 17, 2017 7:12 pm Who knows what is going on in Syria and who is responsible for what. The first casualty of war is the truth. Too much finger pointing and not enough action towards a peace settlement. All sides need there heads banging together so they can forget their own hidden agendas. One fact is certain, too many innocent people are being killed needlessly whilst the powers that be fiddle.
Some sort of conference needs to be convened with parties attending, without setting conditions for their attendance
and they should be told that if they do not attend they will not participate in the country's future.
Once again the politicians are letting civilisation down.

Too many agendas for a solution methinks!


Shane

ApusApus wrote: ↑Mon Apr 17, 2017 7:33 pm

Varky wrote: ↑Mon Apr 17, 2017 7:12 pm Who knows what is going on in Syria and who is responsible for what. The first casualty of war is the truth. Too much finger pointing and not enough action towards a peace settlement. All sides need there heads banging together so they can forget their own hidden agendas. One fact is certain, too many innocent people are being killed needlessly whilst the powers that be fiddle.
Some sort of conference needs to be convened with parties attending, without setting conditions for their attendance
and they should be told that if they do not attend they will not participate in the country's future.
Once again the politicians are letting civilisation down.

Too many agendas for a solution methinks!
Shane

Probably right!

Happy in Cyprus wrote: ↑Wed Apr 26, 2017 11:34 pm

Devil wrote: ↑Fri Apr 14, 2017 10:30 amThere is no proof of who conducted the gas attack. Any one of about five parties may have done it. It is easy to blame any one of them, as the US blamed Assad, without any definitive proof. There is plenty of 'fake truth' floating around, much speculation and not a milligram of proof.

For those who ever doubted that:
a) Sarin was the nerve agent used, and...
b) ...that Bashar Al-Assad and his military were the ones who used it...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-39717894

Really HIC you should be more discerning in your choice of evidence support. Just because the BBC and the French say it does not make it so. You should question as to whether there is an actual 'smoking gun'. Just because the chemical had the 'signature' of gas made by the Syrian government does not mean that another party has not got hold of the chemical and used it. I hope I am never in the dock for a crime that I never committed and you are one of the jury. You cannot convict purely on the basis of circumstantial evidence.

Hudswell,
I would expect nothing more from you, bearing in mind your military background, resorting to your "shoot first and ask questions later" philosophy.

Just because they were the ones who made it, doesn't mean they were the ones who used it.

In the past, rebels have used stuff like this. Where did they get it then, because you can bet they didn't make it themselves?

Dominic wrote: ↑Thu Apr 27, 2017 11:25 am Just because they were the ones who made it, doesn't mean they were the ones who used it.

In the past, rebels have used stuff like this. Where did they get it then, because you can bet they didn't make it themselves?

Oh Dominic...

You forget, for 'bad people' we only need 10% proof before obliterating them from that face of the Earth...

Happy in Cyprus wrote: ↑Fri Apr 28, 2017 11:41 am

Varky wrote: ↑Thu Apr 27, 2017 9:53 amReally HIC you should be more discerning in your choice of evidence support.

And you need to engage brain before mouth. The BBC has not claimed anything; they are merely the reporter (messenger). Read the article again, it says:
"Last week, the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) said analysis of bio-medical samples collected from three victims had presented "incontrovertible" proof that they were exposed to Sarin or a Sarin-like substance".
Is that source not good enough for you?

First of all you posted the link to a BBC story, not me. I was covering all eventualities by including a reference to the BBC and the French who were being reported upon by the BBC.
Secondly no-one is disputing that it was Sarin gas. Maybe you should be engaging brain and understand that it is the chain of evidence as to how it was used and by whom or Is that too difficult for your brain to separate the two factors. I am reluctant to use such sarcastic terms but your arrogance and initial use of such sarcasm forces me to respond in kind.

Hudswell wrote: ↑Thu Apr 27, 2017 7:28 pm

Varky wrote: ↑Thu Apr 27, 2017 10:40 am Hudswell,
I would expect nothing more from you, bearing in mind your military background, resorting to your "shoot first and ask questions later" philosophy.

And you obviously know very little,about the British military or its mindset.....and Dominic, I am afraid Sarin, like most chemical and biological weapons is not fire and forget or plug and play....it takes extremly sophisticated storage, preparation and delivery techniques,,something "the state" is unfortunately proficient at, and your average rebel probably isn't....of course they may have got extremely lucky.

Well the bit about me not understanding about the British military or its mindset, without some sort of evidentiary support, is patronising and about the same level as a child would say "my dad is bigger than your dad".

At least you have agreed it is a possibility that the rebels got lucky and used it, and on that basis any jury could not convict someone else, as you and HIC would.
However if there is direct and not just circumstantial evidence of Syrian government involvement then I would accept their guilt. So far that has not been forthcoming.

Hudswell wrote: ↑Fri Apr 28, 2017 3:55 pm Varky, your statement regarding my "shoot first and ask questions later" philosophy, presumably an assumption based on my military background demonstrates your total lack of understanding of my training and experience and that of the British Army.

In that case convince me that I am wrong rather than making such a bland statement. I await in trepidation.

Hudswell wrote: ↑Fri Apr 28, 2017 6:12 pm A bland statement? No I would suggest the British Army have the finest training, is one of the most respected Armed Forces in the World, certainly one of the most professional and "pound for pound" the most effective...but of course I would say that wouldn't I, but having served extensively with the UN and other NATO forces it is a widely held opinion, but we digress, the weight of evidence against Assad is building....I wonder where the tipping point is for the likes of You?

I will let you know when that point is reached.

By the way I have the greatest respect for the ordinary 'squaddie' who operates at the sharp end of actions. One of the problems is they can be sent out relatively poorly equipped to do the particular job they are asked to do, but they still do it.

Hudswell wrote: ↑Thu Apr 27, 2017 7:28 pm

Varky wrote: ↑Thu Apr 27, 2017 10:40 am Hudswell,
I would expect nothing more from you, bearing in mind your military background, resorting to your "shoot first and ask questions later" philosophy.

And you obviously know very little,about the British military or its mindset.....and Dominic, I am afraid Sarin, like most chemical and biological weapons is not fire and forget or plug and play....it takes extremly sophisticated storage, preparation and delivery techniques,,something "the state" is unfortunately proficient at, and your average rebel probably isn't....of course they may have got extremely lucky.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/syria-un-m ... es/5363139

Rebels have used Sarin in the past.

you are too polite, and too much of a gentleman, Hudswell. Dominic doesn't know how to use google.
One essential in using google is sorting out the wheat from the chaff. And in that Dominic fails miserably.

But first I would like to sincerely thank you for your service to your country, and rebuff some obnoxious comments about you with regard your work written by somebody else above; I think those of us living in the real world can agree that people in the military obey orders; they don't make decisions about what they do.

Globalresearch.ca ????? What??!!!! You are seriously siting this as a legitimate real source Dominic?

Globalresearch is an anti-"Western" website that can't distinguish between serious analysis and discreditable junk — and so publishes both. It's basically the moonbat equivalent to Infowars or WND.....The site has long been a crank magnet: If you disagree with "Western" sources on 9/11, or HAARP, or vaccines, or H1N1, or climate change, or anything published by the "mainstream" media, then GlobalResearch is guaranteed to have a page you will love....
Whenever someone makes a remarkable claim and cites GlobalResearch, they are almost certainly wrong....

{some examples of the crap]
Vaccines in general are a depopulation tactic.[33]...
Vaccines don't work.[41][42]
The US did 9/11 to start a war.[28][27]....
The USA and the CIA created ISIS[48][49] and are using it as a "psyop" theater.[50]..
The Holocaust is a profitable industry, which Zionists collaborated in causing, and shich that Zionists use to push for Palestinian ethnic cleansing.[60]...

And some real headlines -
North Korea, a Land of Human Achievement, Love and Joy: North Korea Celebrates 60th Anniversary of Victory[1](saved archive)
US Training Nazis, Western Media Providing Cover[79]

also
During the 2011 Libyan civil war the site was an apologist for Muammar al-Gaddafi, reproducing his propaganda and painting him as a paragon of a modern leader.[92][93]
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Globalresearch.ca

As for who is funding globalresearch ...
RT propaganda is amplified by many zombie echo-chambers including Global Research, headed by Michel Chossudovsky. In spite of being an economist with no credibility as airplane crash expert, Russian propaganda media present his pro-Kremlin statements on many topics, most recently on the MH17 passenger plane shot-down over Ukraine.


What else -
True Lies: Canada’s Global Research Trolls the Internet
http://www.madcowprod.com/2014/08/14/tr ... -internet/
...Canadian journalist Kyle Matthews published a table showing Global Research, founded by Russian professor Michael Chossudovsky in Canada, as “part of Putin’s propaganda orgs.”... [at link]

Russian Propaganda Expose: GlobalResearch
https://toinformistoinfluence.com/2014/ ... lresearch/
Bottom line at the bottom. Russia is most likely subsidizing propaganda pieces worldwide and in the case of GlobalResearch, more than likely, funds the entire innocent sounding organization called GlobalResearch. GlobalResearch articles are almost laughable to those who are informed by a wide variety of news sources;

Dominic. You might as well cite Bashar Assad himself, and just say - "I believe him. He has never used chemical weapons".

Did you ever read this. You said you were a biochemist! I posted it about a week ago -
The Chemical Realities of Russia’s Khan Sheikhoun Chemical Warehouse Attack Claims
https://www.bellingcat.com/news/mena/20 ... ck-claims/

Dropping a bomb on the binary components does not actually provide the correct mechanism for making the nerve agent. It is an infantile argument.

{But it produces a good "alternative" story if you are a Russian president supporting Assad. And already had a drone flying about the hospital where most victims were taken - before the hospital itself was hit by Syrian warplanes. Covering up the evidence? And kill some more children - just for a laugh.
Now we know what type of Sarin was used, this report is even more relevant.

I am curious.
French research has said that the Sarin was produced in Syria.
Syria (Assiad forces) say they carried out the attack.
The pilot involved has been promoted.
The Bellingcat source says that a direct hit on sarin storage would simply produce a fireball.
People at the hospital say that when the bombs were falling they heard thuds. They thought the bombs weren't exploding.
They weren't - in the normal convential sense. Because they were chemical bombs.

Which bit don't you believe?

Even Putin - who must know what really happened, is not sure which conspiracy theory to support, and in true fashion, in a recent interview with a Russian newspaper, he said there are "several" theories!!!

Vladimir Putin Doesn’t Know Which Syria Conspiracy Theory to Believe

“There are several versions, two of which I consider as priorities,” Putin said, according to a Kremlin translation. “The first is that the Syrian bombs hit a secret chemical weapons facility.”


After calling that hypothesis — which his own ministry of defense had presented as a definite fact last week — “quite possible,” Putin pointed to independent reports that “the terrorists have used chemical weapons” in Iraq, and then asked “why can’t they have them in Syria?”
https://theintercept.com/2017/04/12/vla ... y-believe/

It is possible to have a disagreement with somebody without being completely obnoxious. You should try it some time.

Now, with regards to the article itself, which you are so quick to lampoon, let's look at some of the quotes. I don't have the will power to go through lots of UK publications, but I did find this about Seymour Hersh, the pulitzer prize winning US American Journalist, who wrote for the New Yorker, and is quoted.

According to Wikipedia, Seymour Hersh had this to say about Syria:
______________________________________________________________________

Syrian Civil War[edit]
During the Syrian Civil War US President Obama argued in a 2012 speech that a chemical attack in Syria would constitute crossing a "red line" and that this would trigger a US military intervention against the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.[48]

After this speech, and prior to the chemical attacks in Ghouta, chemical weapons were suspected to have been used in at least four attacks in the country.[49] On 23 March 2013, the Syrian government requested the UN to send inspectors in order to investigate an incident in the town of Khan al-Assal, where it said opposition forces had used chlorine-filled rockets.[50] However, on 25 April US Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel stated that US intelligence showed the Assad government was likely to have used chemical weapons – specifically sarin gas.[51]

On 8 December 2013, the London Review of Books published "Whose Sarin?", in which Hersh argued that President Obama had "omitted important intelligence, and in others he presented assumptions as facts" in his assertion during his televised speech of 10 September that the Syrian government had been responsible for the use of sarin gas in the Ghouta chemical attack of 21 August 2013 against a rebel-held district of Damascus.[52] In particular, Hersh wrote of anonymous intelligence sources telling him that the Syrian army was not the only agency with access to sarin, referring to the Al-Nusra Front Jihadist group, and that, during the period before the Ghouta attack, secretly implanted sensors at the country's known bases had not detected suspicious movements suggesting a forthcoming chemical attack in the period.[52]

On 22 December 2015, the London Review of Books published Hersh's article ″Military to Military″[53] in which he exposed the divide between the US top brass and the politicians in the White House when it came to dealing with Islamic extremists in Syria and Iraq. Hersh reported that the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) of the United States Department of Defense has indirectly supported Syria's President Bashar al-Assad with quality intelligence in an effort to help him defeat jihadist groups, providing said intelligence via Germany, Israel and Russia - to help Assad push back Jabhat al-Nusra and the Islamic State. Hersh also writes the military even undermined a US effort to arm Syrian rebels in a bid to prove it was serious about helping Assad fight their common enemies. Hersh says the Joint Chiefs’ maneuvering was rooted in several concerns, including the US arming of unvetted Syrian rebels with jihadist ties, a belief the administration was overly focused on confronting Assad’s ally Russia, and anger the White House was unwilling to challenge Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey over their support of extremist groups in Syria. These countries had armed extremists with modern weapons - which gave them the upper hand in subduing the Syrian Army - and resulted in huge territorial losses by 2013. Recep Tayyip Erdogan and the Turkish government supported Jabhat al-Nusra. The US JCS reported the Erdogan government were “doing the same for Islamic State” in order to disrupt the balance in the Middle East. The Turkish government refused to halt the flow of foreign militants going through Turkey.[54][55]
__________________________________________________________________-

That would tally with what the original article was saying.

OhSusana wrote: ↑Sat Apr 29, 2017 4:28 pm But first I would like to sincerely thank you for your service to your country, and rebuff some obnoxious comments about you with regard your work written by somebody else above; I think those of us living in the real world can agree that people in the military obey orders; they don't make decisions about what they do.

And that is the very point I was trying to make about the military just obeying orders. But there are factions within the higher echelons of the military who think they need some sort of military action to justify there existence and to support their request for further military expenditure to replace used weapons. That is what I meant by the 'shoot first ask questions comment' earlier.

Varky wrote: ↑Sat Apr 29, 2017 10:39 pm ...there are factions within the higher echelons of the military who think they need some sort of military action to justify there existence and to support their request for further military expenditure to replace used weapons. That is what I meant by the 'shoot first ask questions comment' earlier.

I served for 42 years and retired in 2014. My first 25 years were in the Royal Marines and I was commissioned from the ranks. The next 17 years were in the Rangers - again as a commissioned officer. During that entire time, including 2.5 years in the MOD in Whitehall and the rest of my time in front line units, I never came across a single person like that. I can tell you with absolute conviction that the very last thing that any serving soldier wants to do is fight a war - but when duty calls, they will all step up to the plate in order to protect our people, our way of life and those whom it is our duty to protect - the weak and vulnerable.

Where is your evidence of such a policy or thought process in the 'higher echelons of the military'? Can you claim first hand knowledge?

Royal wrote: ↑Sat Apr 29, 2017 11:34 pm

Varky wrote: ↑Sat Apr 29, 2017 10:39 pm ...there are factions within the higher echelons of the military who think they need some sort of military action to justify their existence and to support their request for further military expenditure to replace used weapons. That is what I meant by the 'shoot first ask questions comment' earlier.

I served for 42 years and retired in 2014. My first 25 years were in the Royal Marines and I was commissioned from the ranks. The next 17 years were in the Rangers - again as a commissioned officer. During that entire time, including 2.5 years in the MOD in Whitehall and the rest of my time in front line units, I never came across a single person like that. I can tell you with absolute conviction that the very last thing that any serving soldier wants to do is fight a war - but when duty calls, they will all step up to the plate in order to protect our people, our way of life and those whom it is our duty to protect - the weak and vulnerable.
Where is your evidence of such a policy or thought process in the 'higher echelons of the military'? Can you claim first hand knowledge?

You are right I have no evidence as I never attended any meetings at the MOD. It is just a suspicion and not only relating to the UK armed forces . I have made reference, in previous postings, to my respect for the 'squaddie', if you care to check. I am sure that the last thing a 'squaddie' wants is to go out and fight a war, but here we are talking about the use of missiles which are less personal, apart from those targeted.

Hudswell wrote: ↑Sat Apr 29, 2017 11:25 pm Varky, and that is my point...the modern Miltary just do not just obey...they question, they debate, the ask questions, they play out the options and then act on informed decisions based on a plan.. And that is from the private up to the general...that is how we are trained... Given a plan never survives first contact we are also trained to adapt and overcome...and we do..

Could you clarify what you mean by that. I grew up near Aldershot and used to watch the squaddies train on the ranges. I am sure that if a private asked his sarge why he had to run up a hill in full kit and rucksack, then they wouldn't have stopped and had a debate.

Full respect to all the squaddies we watched doing their training though. Some of it was tough going!

Hudswell
One of my pals in work is an ex Colonel of Brigade from the Royal Marines and another is an ex RSM from the Coldstream Guards; both highly intelligent and great fun. The Colonel always says to me I'd be terrible in the barracks but an asset in the field so I take that as a back handed compliment.

Jim

When squaddies get to debate:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vC4ACw65aEI