The Syrian Conflict Thread

[Xarog]

So tell me then, what ground to ground missile system did the rebels use to level the hospital?

Ask the Turks, maybe they know...

I remember a few months back when a hospital was hit, in this thread Turkey was blamed as apparently that was some kind of false flag for the Turks ground invasion. Well that truly came to fruition. As i said before its always conveniently someone else bombing all these hospitals, instead of you know the actual people at war with the rebels.

Rofl. If you want to be taken seriously in your musings then you need to be specific, otherwise it merely comes across as incoherent ramblings.

The fact that you think it's ridiculous to be skeptical of all reports that come from a war theatre says all that needs to be said, really.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

Syria's civil war: five years of Guardian reporting

 

[Unhappy438]

Ask the Turks, maybe they know...

Hold on let me just get Erdogan on the line . Please Xarog, its your claim, provide the proof.

The fact that you think it's ridiculous to be skeptical of all reports that come from a war theatre says all that needs to be said, really.

The fact that you think you need to only claim something to create reasonable doubt says all that needs to be said, really. It was obviously aliens, schit looks like i just created reasonable doubt.

 

[Unhappy438]

So to summarise, the rebels could have done it but we dont wish to say what weapons system they used or exactly which rebels. The cognitive dissonance is strong.

 

[Xarog]

Hold on let me just get Erdogan on the line . Please Xarog, its your claim, provide the proof.

Lol. I'm not the one claiming to know what happened, you are.

The fact that you think you need to only claim something to create reasonable doubt says all that needs to be said, really. It was obviously aliens, schit looks like i just created reasonable doubt.

You're on another continent reading "news" stories about a war in which every participant has a motive to misrepresent themselves, where chicanery is to be expected and you're passing judgement as to what did or did not happen as if everything you say is not subject to reasonable doubt.

 

[Xarog]

So to summarise, the rebels could have done it but we dont wish to say what weapons system they used or exactly which rebels. The cognitive dissonance is strong.

There is no cognitive dissonance. There's just you shooting your mouth off, drawing premature conclusions.

Edit: And if it makes you feel better, I take the reports of the rebels shooting rockets with skepticism too. What's to say Assad wasn't trying to deflect blame for the earlier attacks by staging an assault on his own team?

 

[Unhappy438]

Lol. I'm not the one claiming to know what happened, you are.

You are claiming to create reasonable doubt with a reasonable theory yet you have offered nothing to show why your theory is reasonable.

You're on another continent reading "news" stories about a war in which every participant has a motive to misrepresent themselves, where chicanery is to be expected and you're passing judgement as to what did or did not happen as if everything you say is not subject to reasonable doubt.

Im willing to listen to the evidence, you seem more willing to throw out scenarios but not so willing to supply any evidence for those scenarios.

So i will ask you one more time, which rebels and which weapons system?

 

[Xarog]

You are claiming to create reasonable doubt with a reasonable theory yet you have offered nothing to show why your theory is reasonable.

Because it's a reasonable possibility.

Im willing to listen to the evidence, you seem more willing to throw out scenarios but not so willing to supply any evidence for those scenarios.

So i will ask you one more time, which rebels and which weapons system?

Rofl. I'm not the one drawing premature conclusions, you are. The evidence we are working with is inherently unrealiable, but apparently you'll do anything but admit this blatant truth.

 

[Dave]

You are claiming to create reasonable doubt with a reasonable theory yet you have offered nothing to show why your theory is reasonable.



Im willing to listen to the evidence, you seem more willing to throw out scenarios but not so willing to supply any evidence for those scenarios.

So i will ask you one more time, which rebels and which weapons system?

You play a really good devils advocate, unhappy, but you really should begin to show more scepticism for both sides, you accuse Xarog of posting scenarios without evidence, but that is exactly what a scenario is, it's a supposition of what might be.

You really need to start realising that none of the sides in this conflict are without blame and none are being completely factual or truthful.

 

[Unhappy438]

Because it's a reasonable possibility.


Rofl. I'm not the one drawing premature conclusions, you are. The evidence we are working with is inherently unrealiable, but apparently you'll do anything but admit this blatant truth.

I wont do anything to not admit that, im well aware that the first casualty of war is the truth. That doesnt mean we can propose scenarios that cant even answer the simple questions.

You play a really good devils advocate, unhappy, but you really should begin to show more scepticism for both sides, you accuse Xarog of posting scenarios without evidence, but that is exactly what a scenario is, it's a supposition of what might be.

If you want the scenario to be a possibility then basic questions need to be answered. Otherwise its just fanciful thinking.

You really need to start realising that none of the sides in this conflict are without blame and none are being completely factual or truthful.

When have i ever said otherwise?

 

[OrbitalDawn]

You play a really good devils advocate, unhappy, but you really should begin to show more scepticism for both sides, you accuse Xarog of posting scenarios without evidence, but that is exactly what a scenario is, it's a supposition of what might be.

You really need to start realising that none of the sides in this conflict are without blame and none are being completely factual or truthful.

My impression of him is that he has been doing exactly that.

 

[Xarog]

I wont do anything to not admit that, im well aware that the first casualty of war is the truth. That doesnt mean we can propose scenarios that cant even answer the simple questions.

Your question presupposes that we have all the facts at our disposal. Why is that a reasonable assumption? Why should I, sitting here on the arse end of Africa have a reasonable idea as to the real facts on the ground wrt to Syria? Why should anyone? The very notion is absurd.

If you want the scenario to be a possibility then basic questions need to be answered. Otherwise its just fanciful thinking.

Again, that presupposes that any of us would have a reasonable chance of having all the facts.

When have i ever said otherwise?

With this in mind and other information, it becomes abundantly clear Russia or Assad is responsible for the attack on the hospital, much like all those in the past.

 

[Unhappy438]

Your question presupposes that we have all the facts at our disposal. Why is that a reasonable assumption? Why should I, sitting here on the arse end of Africa have a reasonable idea as to the real facts on the ground wrt to Syria? Why should anyone? The very notion is absurd.

Thats fine, if you don't know then you don't know. That's all you have to say.


Btw your quote doesnt back up this at all.

You really need to start realising that none of the sides in this conflict are without blame and none are being completely factual or truthful.

At no point did i say the rebels are without blame. In fact just yesterday i said this

Disgusting most of the rebels are just as despicable as Assad

 

[Xarog]

Thats fine, if you don't know then you don't know. That's all you have to say.

Except that I'm criticising your position that you do know. I take issue with it. You presume too much.

Btw your quote doesnt back up this at all.

At no point did i say the rebels are without blame. In fact just yesterday i said this

You really need to start realising that none of the sides in this conflict are without blame and none are being completely factual or truthful.

Which leads back to...

You play a really good devils advocate, unhappy, but you really should begin to show more scepticism for both sides, you accuse Xarog of posting scenarios without evidence, but that is exactly what a scenario is, it's a supposition of what might be.

Saying something is abundantly clear is not a position of scepticism, you're shifting the goalposts.

 

[Unhappy438]

Except that I'm criticising your position that you do know. I take issue with it. You presume too much.

Nonsense, im asking you for evidence for your scenario. Something im still waiting for instead of your incessant waffling. If you find any evidence for your rebel idea let me know otherwise ive got work to do.

Saying something is abundantly clear is not a position of scepticism, you're shifting the goalposts.

Dave is referring to the conflict as a whole not specific scenarios. And yes to me all the evidence i have available points to Assad, until you provide something else i will stick with that.

 

[Unhappy438]

My impression of him is that he has been doing exactly that.

Who would have thought requesting evidence represent a lack of scepticism. Apparently listing off any scenario is a product of true scepticism

 

[Xarog]

Nonsense, im asking you for evidence for your scenario. Something im still waiting for instead of your incessant waffling. If you find any evidence for your rebel idea let me know otherwise ive got work to do.

The only one waffling here is you. There is no need to provide evidence because the possibility alone is reasonable, as are any of 20 other possibilities. You have not ruled them out, but you for some crazy reason think that the conclusions you have drawn from an incomplete picture should be accepted by anyone in the first place.

Dave is referring to the conflict as a whole not specific scenarios. And yes to me all the evidence i have available points to Assad, until you provide something else i will stick with that.

Uh, no.

Given the other posts he's made specifically with regard to your claims about who is responsible for the hospital attacks, it is "abundantly clear" that he's not referring to the conflict as a whole. Hell, if it wasn't for Dave's posts to that effect we wouldn't even be having this conversation, because it was only after you tried to contradict him that I even got involved. Your logic is tortured and unconvincing.

 

[Unhappy438]

Still no evidence? PM me if you have get a hold of anything. Thanks

 

[Xarog]

Who would have thought requesting evidence represent a lack of scepticism. Apparently listing off any scenario is a product of true scepticism

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/skepticism

noun
1.
skeptical attitude or temper; doubt.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/skeptical

1.
inclined to skepticism; having an attitude of doubt:
a skeptical young woman who will question whatever you say.
2.
doubtful about a particular thing:
My teacher thinks I can get a scholarship, but I'm skeptical.
3.
showing doubt:
a skeptical smile.

You don't display any doubt, Mr Abundantly Clear.

 

[Xarog]

Still no evidence? PM me if you have get a hold of anything. Thanks

Can you show why if such evidence exists that there would be any reason to expect it to make its way onto the internet?

Does the fact that I'm unlikely to have such evidence in the event that it does indeed exist do anything to diminish the possibility that such evidence exists?

I mean ffs, it's a civil war shrouded in disinformation but here comes Unhappy thinking that despite all this he's got some kind of handle on the truth.