The Syrian Conflict Thread

Unhappy438 said:
You're welcome to provide proof of that, you will need to show me where i have disparaged a source when they blame "x" but then used that very same source when they blame "y".
Click to expand...
Lol comprehension. Obviously your sources are just as biased as you.
I don't care much to proof anything. It's just a random observation. You are free to agree or disagree.
 
rietrot said:
Lol comprehension. Obviously your sources are just as biased as you.
I don't care much to proof anything. It's just a random observation. You are free to agree or disagree.
Click to expand...

Nothing then, not surprised. Wolf crying like Narrow now.
 
Unhappy438 said:
You're welcome to provide proof of that, you will need to show me where i have disparaged a source when they blame "x" but then used that very same source when they blame "y".
Click to expand...

That's much too easy, here you go:
Unhappy438 said:
Dont talk to me, i dont value SOHR as a good source.
Click to expand...

But then with the initial reports of Russia hitting a UN convoy, the only source at the time was in fact SOHR, yet:
Unhappy438 said:
Its going to be very entertaining watching the Putin shills explain how this bombing of the UN aid convoy is everyone's fault besides Russia/Syria.
Click to expand...
 
Unhappy438 said:
There is quite clearly a differing standard of evidence you require depending on who is being accused. You would never be posting this if "The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights" claimed Russia was responsible. Would you like me to go back in your post history on your views of them when blaming Russia?
Click to expand...
You're welcome to go back, but what would be the point if I don't dispute the evidence you imply you'd find?

What would be more valuable is for you to prove that me posting that there would be no outcry of US caused civilian deaths somehow translates to believing the SOHR. I posted an article that happens to quote SOHR, so what? As you yourself pointed out the SOHR have often accused Russia as well.

So let's assume they're either always wrong or always right, how does that change the point that when x is accused there is an outcry, but when y is accused there is no outcry? ... hint: it doesn't
 
rietrot said:
Lol most? I think you underestimate the amout of conspiracy theorist on here. Quite a few people were tinfoil hats so that the bankers can't read their minds.
It's just old news.

(I include myself here)
Click to expand...

I prefer to deal in facts, yes conspiracy theorists may try to fill in gaps with their theories due to a lack of understanding, but facts are difficult to dispute.
 
Last edited:
NarrowBandFtw said:
But then with the initial reports of Russia hitting a UN convoy, the only source at the time was in fact SOHR, yet:
Click to expand...

Nope, plenty other sources on that one. The official UN investigation found Syria responsible as well. Oops try again.
 
Unhappy438 said:
Nope, plenty other sources on that one. The official UN investigation found Syria responsible as well. Oops try again.
Click to expand...

"at the time", the post I quoted from you was after the very first reports, there was no UN investigation yet.

Intentionally misreading again or what? Regardless, you've yet to prove how the SOHR's legitimacy, or lack thereof, affects my point at all ...
 
NarrowBandFtw said:
"at the time", the post I quoted from you was after the very first reports, there was no UN investigation yet.

Intentionally misreading again or what? Regardless, you've yet to prove how the SOHR's legitimacy, or lack thereof, affects my point at all ...
Click to expand...

At the time there was plenty other sources as well, including video and photographic evidence, you're being dishonest in your desperation.

Thanks for proving my original quote though namely:

Its going to be very entertaining watching the Putin shills explain how this bombing of the UN aid convoy is everyone's fault besides Russia/Syria.
Click to expand...

Putin shills denying the obvious at the time only for the obvious to be the truth at a later date after an investigation.

NarrowBandFtw said:
Intentionally misreading again or what? Regardless, you've yet to prove how the SOHR's legitimacy, or lack thereof, affects my point at all ...
Click to expand...

Your inability to use sources consistently does that all by itself.
 
NarrowBandFtw said:
That's much too easy, here you go:

But then with the initial reports of Russia hitting a UN convoy, the only source at the time was in fact SOHR, yet:
Click to expand...

He said the same thing about the Daily Mail

Unhappy438 said:
No i wouldnt consider daily mail a good source.
Click to expand...

But posts Daily Mail "exclusives" when it suits him that turn out to be fake news.
 
Unhappy438 said:
At the time there was plenty other sources as well, including video and photographic evidence, you're being dishonest in your desperation
Click to expand...

Now you are just flat out lying, I called your hypocrisy out at the time, the accusation stands. Busy Friday ahead and I've honestly got better things to do than to be trolled by a liar, good day.

Unhappy438 said:
Your inability to use sources consistently does that all by itself.
Click to expand...
Desperate flailing by a man who's been cornered, gotcha.
 
Alan said:
He said the same thing about the Daily Mail



But posts Daily Mail "exclusives" when it suits him that turn out to be fake news.
Click to expand...

Shame Alan, still desperate are we? Dont you have twitter posts to go to?
 
NarrowBandFtw said:
Now you are just flat out lying, I called your hypocrisy out at the time, the accusation stands. Busy Friday ahead and I've honestly got better things to do than to be trolled by a liar, good day.
Click to expand...

A two second google lists some of the non sohr evidence at the time

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...y-attack-what-evidence-claims-russia-to-blame
https://www.bellingcat.com/news/men...overed-syrian-red-crescent-aid-convoy-attack/

Shame Narrow, youve got that one finger pointing at me but four pointing at yourself.
 
Unhappy438 said:
A two second google lists some of the non sohr evidence at the time
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...y-attack-what-evidence-claims-russia-to-blame
https://www.bellingcat.com/news/men...overed-syrian-red-crescent-aid-convoy-attack/
Click to expand...
Your post was on 20 September, your two sources are from 21 and 22 September respectively, how about you try again :crylaugh:

Unhappy438 said:
Shame Narrow, youve got that one finger pointing at me but four pointing at yourself.
Click to expand...
Actually those four fingers are simply stuck to the ice cream cone you're trying to ram straight through your forehead :crylaugh:
 
NarrowBandFtw said:
Mostly just to watch you waste an hour of your time to prove a point that is of no significance to the original post, thanks for the lols though :crylaugh:
Click to expand...

Took about 2 to 10 seconds per google, you wasted about 1 minute of my time. Well worth it to prove your negligence.
 
Unhappy438 said:
Took about 2 to 10 seconds per google, you wasted about 1 minute of my time. Well worth it to prove your negligence.
Click to expand...
Lol. Petty things. Nobody really cares and you didn't proof anything. Tomorrow will just be more of the same.
Negligence? Is that a wolfcry thing were you don't really understand the meaning of words?
 
rietrot said:
Lol. Petty things. Nobody really cares and you didn't proof anything. Tomorrow will just be more of the same.
Negligence? Is that a wolfcry thing were you don't really understand the meaning of words?
Click to expand...

1/10, you're trying too hard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X