• Welcome to DOSBODS

    Please consider creating a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

JackieO

Here we go...Chemical weapons kill 70 Syria

Recommended Posts

Yes I've been wondering whether the recent demonization of Russia has been a prelude to a false flag nerve gas event so we're all primed to respond to a "Russia has done it again we must respond immediately" narrative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought the white helmets were yet another faction of the fighting but masquerading as a humanitarian group for propaganda purposes?

I could be wrong of course; whenever I've tried to dig to find out what they actually are the contradictory viewpoints presented by the various media outlets leave me none the wiser.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Carl Fimble said:

I was going to say "this is bullshit" but everyone on here seems to realise already.

Good.

Assad is alright I reckon, certainly a hell of a lot better than anyone else they would want to replace him with anyway.

 

It has feck all to do with bad people its all about geo politics and hydrocarbons .....the bad man narrative is what they want you to believe same goes for Gaddafi ... they are proxy wars fought by the west ...Russia called their bluff

Edited by Long time lurking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Long time lurking said:

I has feck all to do with bad people its all about geo politics and hydrocarbons .....the bad man narrative is what they want you to believe same goes for Gaddafi ... they are proxy wars fought by the west ...Russia called their bluff

I didn't need to be persuaded with Gaddafi; after his material support for the IRA I was delighted to see that he was beaten to death whilst being raped by a bayonet.

I don't however see the case for deposing Assad any more than I did for Saddam Hussein or whoever is currently ruling Iran.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Frank Hovis said:

I thought the white helmets were yet another faction of the fighting but masquerading as a humanitarian group for propaganda purposes?

I could be wrong of course; whenever I've tried to dig to find out what they actually are the contradictory viewpoints presented by the various media outlets leave me none the wiser.

I read recently clarifying that they were part of one of the fighting groups.

It's like paint your helmets a colour and that somehow denotes innocence in people's minds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, twocents said:

I read recently clarifying that they were part of one of the fighting groups.

It's like paint your helmets a colour and that somehow denotes innocence in people's minds.

Thanks.  This one group showed the total analytical failure of the MSM as I read stories lauding them as selfless heroes and others saying they were a foreign-funded fighting group using the white helmets image as a way to move around without being shot.

There was no consensus or common ground so I concluded that they were just reprinting whatever their most recent source had told them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

I didn't need to be persuaded with Gaddafi; after his material support for the IRA I was delighted to see that he was beaten to death whilst being raped by a bayonet.

I don't however see the case for deposing Assad any more than I did for Saddam Hussein or whoever is currently ruling Iran.

The IRA point is legit to a point Omagh change that relationship my take on it was he thought he funding the fight against the government not killing women and children the funding allegedly stopped after Omagh he was taken for a ride by many    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/20/nicolas-sarkozy-police-custody-french-president-campaign-funding-libya

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Long time lurking said:

The IRA point is legit to a point Omagh change that relationship my take on it was he thought he funding the fight against the government not killing women and children the funding allegedly stopped after Omagh he was taken for a ride by many     https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/20/nicolas-sarkozy-police-custody-french-president-campaign-funding-libya

Even if he only thought he was funding a fight against the British government then that's bad enough.  He was a threat to Britain.

Saddam Hussein wasn't, Assad isn't, Iran isn't.

And North Korea isn't.  Though because I see them as a real threat to world peace owing to their unstable leader I see a case for regime change there for one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Frank Hovis said:

Even if he only thought he was funding a fight against the British government then that's bad enough.  He was a threat to Britain.

Saddam Hussein wasn't, Assad isn't, Iran isn't.

And North Korea isn't.  Though because I see them as a real threat to world peace owing to their unstable leader I see a case for regime change there for one.

I take the point but that all stopped a decade before his demise  like i said he was taken for a ride by many and there are far more nefarious threats to the UK funded by other states i see him as playing the same roll as Saddam ,they kept very unstable areas under control ,it`s not a coincidence that those areas are now in turmoil that was always the plan along with the fact they were both conspiring to undermine the petro dollar Iran was in on the game too  

Yes he was no angle but Saddam and Assad are/have all been persecuted for the exact same reasons, Egypt was no different it`s all about having the right puppet in charge ....the populace are irrelevant   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Long time lurking said:

Yes he was no angle but Saddam and Assad are/have all been persecuted for the exact same reasons, Egypt was no different it`s all about having the right puppet in charge ....the populace are irrelevant   

Add in Gadaffi to that list. 

French interest and geopolitics seems to have played an outsized role in what has happened in Syria but usual suspects in there too.

 

Syria intervention plan fueled by oil interests, not chemical weapon concern

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/aug/30/syria-chemical-attack-war-intervention-oil-gas-energy-pipelines

 

Edited by onlyme

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, onlyme said:

Add in Gadaffi to that list. 

He was the one that was no angel 

They are all seen as threats to the UK and Europe one way ore another Algeria  Egypt Syria Libya`s threats are via proxy from Russia .Russia has Europe by the short and curly`s when it comes to their gas supplies having the right puppets in charge in North Africa would end Russias hold over Europe regarding gas supplies ..Russia are not in Syria because they feel Assad has been hard done by they are fighting for there own safety /economic well being   

Edited by Long time lurking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Long time lurking said:

He was there by proxy of the previous paragraph ...i thinko.O

They are all seen as threats to the UK and Europe one way ore another Algeria  Egypt Syria Libya`s threats are via proxy from Russia .Russia has Europe by the short and curly`s when it comes to their gas supplies having the right puppets in charge in North Africa would end Russias hold over Europe regarding gas supplies ..Russia are not in Syria because they feel Assad has been hard done by they are fighting for there own safety /economic well being   

A situation also largely of our own making (well politician's making), tearing down coal fired stations chasing the zero CO2/pollution dream, nuclear flight as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, DocH said:

Yes I've been wondering whether the recent demonization of Russia has been a prelude to a false flag nerve gas event so we're all primed to respond to a "Russia has done it again we must respond immediately" narrative.

It just needs to be "only available in Russia".  Maybe even a Novichock type.

It would be as if they knew.

Edited by twocents

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Incidentally we regularly hear and read about accusation of regimes like in Syria carrying out chemical and nerve agent attacks.  I can't say I remember hearing or reading about any foreign regime making a similar accusation against Britain or its allies.  That's a surprise as you might expect some tit for tat accusations even if untrue - maybe it's just that the censors and redactors are effective.

Vietnam aside when I think the US openly admitted using stuff like Agent Orange a herbicide and defoliant chemical.

Edited by twocents

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, twocents said:

Incidentally we regularly hear and read about accusation of regimes like in Syria carrying out chemical and nerve agent attacks.  I can't say I remember hearing or reading about any foreign regime making a similar accusation against Britain or its allies.  That's a surprise as you might expect some tit for tat accusations even if untrue - maybe it's just that the censors and redactors are effective.

Vietnam aside when I think the US openly admitted using stuff like Agent Orange a herbicide and defoliant chemical.

Do you think we have since the first world war?  I'm not aware of it and we seem to have entirely set our face against it.  I know that we research it but it doesn't seem to be for use unless in absolute extremis.

I don't think there would be any credence in these accusations; unlike expelling diplomates for spying when of course I would expect some of them to be spying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

Do you think we have since the first world war?  I'm not aware of it and we seem to have entirely set our face against it.  I know that we research it but it doesn't seem to be for use unless in absolute extremis.

I don't think there would be any credence in these accusations; unlike expelling diplomates for spying when of course I would expect some of them to be spying.

I very much doubt it but don't know as I'm not in a position to know.  I don't think so but would we know?  I certainly hope not - as a nation we are totally against it.

Then there's the false flag stories and doubt about who is responsible for some incidents if only at a proxy level.

I'm just a bit surprised that there never appears to be tit for tat accusations reported even if entirely made up and fabricated just for an enemy regime's own propaganda purposes.  In that connection it's almost as if those enemies somehow automatically accept being cast in the bad guy role.

Edited by twocents

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Frank Hovis said:

Do you think we have since the first world war?  I'm not aware of it and we seem to have entirely set our face against it.  I know that we research it but it doesn't seem to be for use unless in absolute extremis.

I don't think there would be any credence in these accusations; unlike expelling diplomates for spying when of course I would expect some of them to be spying.

I think that is mainly because Chemical weapons were found to have limited use in warfare. When the British army first deployed Chlorine gas against the Germans at Loos it was a fiasco with most of it blowing back into the British lines. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Frank Hovis said:

I didn't need to be persuaded with Gaddafi; after his material support for the IRA I was delighted to see that he was beaten to death whilst being raped by a bayonet.

I don't however see the case for deposing Assad any more than I did for Saddam Hussein or whoever is currently ruling Iran.

That's horrible Frank. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.