The Syrian Conflict Thread

[video=youtube_share;G8lyktVh4yQ]https://youtu.be/G8lyktVh4yQ[/video]

basically the youtuber believes Assad is not lying when he says he didn't commit the chemical attack
 
Last edited:
The use of chemical weapons in Syria, gay rights and Russian media coverage of the recent French presidential election were high on the agenda during talks Monday between new French President Emmanuel Macron and Russia's Vladimir Putin. "The first point is a very clear red line to ban any kind of use of chemical weapons, and any use of chemical weapons will be retaliated by France," Macron said, standing next to Putin before reporters at the palace of Versailles, near Paris. Macron said he hopes the two countries can work together in bringing peace and a "democratic transition" to Syria.
Click to expand...

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/05/29/europe/france-macron-putin-talks/

The Soros sycophants mean it this time
 
NarrowBandFtw said:
Macron is not helping the rumours about his sexual preferences at all by putting gay rights high on the agenda ...

This bit is interesting though:

So when is France attacking the CIA in retaliation then?
Click to expand...

Proof that the CIA released any chemical weapon ?

It's true that gay rights in Chechnya are not a current issue at all, they are so happy in concentration camps...
 
f2wohf said:
Proof that the CIA released any chemical weapon ?
Click to expand...
Did you miss the comic sans? As incompetent as they are, I doubt we're going to see any hard evidence on the topic. It's mighty, MIGHTY convenient that Trump went from wanting to work with anyone who can help end the civil war to a proper war monger sending tomahawks flying in an instant though. Many here have commented on the chemical attack with the most astute observation there is: who benefited from the attack?

f2wohf said:
It's true that gay rights in Chechnya are not a current issue at all, they are so happy in concentration camps...
Click to expand...
There you go putting words in other people's mouths again, I guess I should thank you for limiting the insertion to words :o
Priority order does not speak to how current something is fyi. I'm sure Macron had more important things to deal with first, he chose his priority list though and incorrectly so imo
 
NarrowBandFtw said:
Did you miss the comic sans? As incompetent as they are, I doubt we're going to see any hard evidence on the topic. It's mighty, MIGHTY convenient that Trump went from wanting to work with anyone who can help end the civil war to a proper war monger sending tomahawks flying in an instant though. Many here have commented on the chemical attack with the most astute observation there is: who benefited from the attack?


There you go putting words in other people's mouths again, I guess I should thank you for limiting the insertion to words :o
Priority order does not speak to how current something is fyi. I'm sure Macron had more important things to deal with first, he chose his priority list though and incorrectly so imo
Click to expand...

Human rights violations are usually pretty high in the French agenda.

For the Comic Sans, I don't see it from the app on my phone.

You conveniently didn't comment on the French report wrt to the chemical attacks when I posted it here.
 
f2wohf said:
You conveniently didn't comment on the French report wrt to the chemical attacks when I posted it here.
Click to expand...

Strange, I distinctly recall rubbishing that report which is based entirely on third party evidence. Must've been in response to someone else's post then.
 
Last edited:
f2wohf said:
You haven't, I've checked the three pages around the report.
Click to expand...
Like I said, must've been in response to someone else then, or perhaps in response to the initial UK report. The search functionality on here isn't good enough to find my post I'm thinking of, I tried :(

f2wohf said:
It's absolutely not based on third parties. French agents collected the samples.
Click to expand...
Why? Because the French said so? The Russians, who are on the ground and have access, have called that claim into question:
https://www.rt.com/news/386404-french-syria-chemical-attack-report/

As has ZeroHedge:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-28/debunking-french-report-syrian-chemical-weapons
 
NarrowBandFtw said:
Like I said, must've been in response to someone else then, or perhaps in response to the initial UK report. The search functionality on here isn't good enough to find my post I'm thinking of, I tried :(


Why? Because the French said so? The Russians, who are on the ground and have access, have called that claim into question:
https://www.rt.com/news/386404-french-syria-chemical-attack-report/

As has ZeroHedge:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-28/debunking-french-report-syrian-chemical-weapons
Click to expand...

Maybe someone else uses the same formula. But that's Syria's formula.

Not even going to read RT, they're ANN7 in worse.

So what we do ? We let the people who threw the chemical weapons run away because the proofs are not 100%. Even murders are not proven at 100%.

Or use a more rational way which is to proceed like criminal courts do and establish that the body of evidence allows beyond reasonable doubt to consider that Syria is responsible ?
 
f2wohf said:
Not even going to read RT, they're ANN7 in worse.
Click to expand...
If you bothered to you would know that to be false. Feel free to try and prove your false accusation btw, best of luck.

f2wohf said:
So what we do ? We let the people who threw the chemical weapons run away because the proofs are not 100%. Even murders are not proven at 100%
Click to expand...
Would you rather invade a foreign country and commit acts of war by firing off a barrage of cruise missiles without any evidence whatsoever? :wtf:

f2wohf said:
Or use a more rational way which is to proceed like criminal courts do and establish that the body of evidence allows beyond reasonable doubt to consider that Syria is responsible ?
Click to expand...
What body? The only evidence offered to date has been reports by people with very clear agendas, no sane court is going to just take the murderer's word OR just the victim's word for it. Yet that's all on offer.

Ironically the evil Russians were the ones calling for an independent investigation by the OPCW, the US and their puppets shot that plan down, they don't want an independent investigation ... but I guess that's all fine ... their own reports will suffice ... :erm:
 
NarrowBandFtw said:
If you bothered to you would know that to be false. Feel free to try and prove your false accusation btw, best of luck.


Would you rather invade a foreign country and commit acts of war by firing off a barrage of cruise missiles without any evidence whatsoever? :wtf:


What body? The only evidence offered to date has been reports by people with very clear agendas, no sane court is going to just take the murderer's word OR just the victim's word for it. Yet that's all on offer.

Ironically the evil Russians were the ones calling for an independent investigation by the OPCW, the US and their puppets shot that plan down, they don't want an independent investigation ... but I guess that's all fine ... their own reports will suffice ... :erm:
Click to expand...

Russia wanted to chose the inspectors of OPCW, which is the US refused. Russia vetoed the investigation at the UN also. https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/...ted-nations-investigation-of-syria-gas-attack

The request for an investigation came from France and UK, seeing that nothing was happening France launched its own investigation.

In the case of a murder, there's usually only the word of the murderer since the victim is dead.

I watched RT live during the french elections and the night of the election. It was even more pathetic than ANN7. https://www.google.co.za/amp/s/amp....erence-rt-sputnik-propaganda-fake-news-2017-5
 
f2wohf said:
Russia wanted to chose the inspectors of OPCW, which is the US refused. Russia vetoed the investigation at the UN also
Click to expand...
and the UN investigation was effectively going to be appointed by the US, and around we go

f2wohf said:
seeing that nothing was happening France launched its own investigation
Click to expand...
A fool's errand seeing as it was always going to be perceived as biased, regardless of their methods.

f2wohf said:
In the case of a murder, there's usually only the word of the murderer since the victim is dead
Click to expand...
As if the hypothetical is now no longer relevant? Courts don't favour one's word over the other's, courts demand actual evidence.

f2wohf said:
I watched RT live during the french elections and the night of the election. It was even more pathetic than ANN7. https://www.google.co.za/amp/s/amp....erence-rt-sputnik-propaganda-fake-news-2017-5
Click to expand...
All I see is a baseless accusation by Macron, forgive me for not just taking his word for it, like courts of justice I too prefer actual evidence. What specifically did you take issue with in their reporting of the French election?
 
NarrowBandFtw said:
and the UN investigation was effectively going to be appointed by the US, and around we go


A fool's errand seeing as it was always going to be perceived as biased, regardless of their methods.


As if the hypothetical is now no longer relevant? Courts don't favour one's word over the other's, courts demand actual evidence.


All I see is a baseless accusation by Macron, forgive me for not just taking his word for it, like courts of justice I too prefer actual evidence. What specifically did you take issue with in their reporting of the French election?
Click to expand...

You conveniently forget to mention it and say that Russia wanted an independent investigation.

In the middle of the election result (which were showing almost only Le Pen), they broadcast a "documentary" about nationalist movements in Europe being so good and so necessary for Europe. And then go on to speak only of the migrants and how France will be in trouble. The programmation is pure propaganda.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)#Propaganda_claims_and_related_issues
 
f2wohf said:
In the middle of the election result (which were showing almost only Le Pen)
Click to expand...
At a time when it could no longer influence any voters then? Sounds fine.

f2wohf said:
they broadcast a "documentary" about nationalist movements in Europe being so good and so necessary for Europe. And then go on to speak only of the migrants and how France will be in trouble
Click to expand...
LOL ok now I get it, they tried to pry your blinkers off just a smidgen and you didn't appreciate the reality shock :crylaugh:
I didn't see this broadcast, but based purely on the list of topics you mention they didn't say anything that a myriad of EU publications haven't also said before, so what's the problem?
 
NarrowBandFtw said:
At a time when it could no longer influence any voters then? Sounds fine.


LOL ok now I get it, they tried to pry your blinkers off just a smidgen and you didn't appreciate the reality shock :crylaugh:
I didn't see this broadcast, but based purely on the list of topics you mention they didn't say anything that a myriad of EU publications haven't also said before, so what's the problem?
Click to expand...

The timing is wrong and purely pushing Russian interests with its nationalist agenda (surprise, who funds the European nationalist parties ?).

French TV has a lot documentaries on migrants, balanced ones. Not showing you monsters ready to eat good white kids.

They don't report fake news, but very biased one sided views without presenting the other views.

When it comes to analysis, look at the differences between these two analysis of the first debate:
http://www.politico.eu/article/fren...ncois-fillon-benoit-hamon-jean-luc-melenchon/
https://www.rt.com/news/381583-france-presidential-candidates-debate/

Islam was only spoken of by Le Pen who was slamming on it forcing the others to answer but never was a central topic, independence the same, EU was very under debated.
 
f2wohf said:
When it comes to analysis, look at the differences between these two analysis of the first debate:
http://www.politico.eu/article/fren...ncois-fillon-benoit-hamon-jean-luc-melenchon/
https://www.rt.com/news/381583-france-presidential-candidates-debate/
Click to expand...
Both seem reasonably objective, both consist of about 90% direct quotes so your only real problem is which quotes they chose? Crimea came up in the debate, RT included it, not that surprising now is it? Pushing their agenda, sure, just like all publications do. Pushing their agenda harder than the likes of CNN or WaPo are? No way in hell!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X