We’re bombing Syria

  • Thread starter Thread starter mat
  • Start date Start date
Ricster said:


I wonder if this will make a difference to you but here you go. Best source i can find for you @SWP's back and @west didsblue

I dont make stuff up.

"In November 2013, seven Islamist groups - Harakat Ahrar al-Sham al-Islamiyya, Jaysh al-Islam, Suqour al-Sham, Liwa al-Tawhid, Liwa al-Haqq, Ansar al-Sham and the Kurdish Islamic Front - declared that they were forming the largest rebel alliance yet in the 33-month conflict, with an estimated 45,000 fighters. They said the new Islamic Front was an "independent political, military and social formation" that aimed to "topple the Assad regime completely and build an Islamic state". They outlined a new command structure, with key roles shared between the seven groups, and said they would work towards a "gradual merger"."

Link isnt working
BBC,
World

Middle East

Guide to the Syrian rebels
  • 13 December 2013
Click to expand...

I don't know why I'm bothering because you only see what you want to see.

You referred to parliamentary response where you said:
" The link shows that we as a nation have spent £32m on Syrian Opposition Forces from 2011-2017.
2011? Please note the start date.
Also the government refers to Jaish al-Islam and Ahrar al-Sham as moderates who have benefited from the funding."

When actually it said:
"Through the Conflict Pool and its successor, the Conflict Stability and Security Fund (CSSF) for Syria, the UK has provided political support and non-lethal equipment to the moderate opposition. In terms of equipment, we have provided communications, medical and logistics equipment. We have also provided equipment to protect against chemical weapons attack. The value of this support was £32 million for the period 2011-17. For security reasons we do not disclose the names of the groups supported by Her Majesty's Government. The UK does not supply weapons to anybody in Syria."

The question was asked about Jaish al-Islam and Ahrar al-Sham but anyone who can read can see that these groups are not mentioned in the government response.
So you lied.

Whether these groups have benefited from the £32M worth of non-military support the government has provided to moderate rebels is another question which is not covered in your post about the parliamentary question.
Your subsequent post quoted above refers to these groups forming an anti-Assad alliance with several others. It does not prove or disprove anything about whether UK funding supported them as there are dozens of rebel groups that this support could potentially have gone to.
So again you're making up conclusions to fit in with your anti-western narrative.
 
Ricster said:
So i put a link up after you 3 rounding on me showing both groups being part of the FSA and you still go on about my opinions?

So it didn't really matter about any links cos you werent going to believe it anyway. Ok
Click to expand...
If there's one thing worse than your lies and half truths it's your whining and playing the victim.
 
Ricster said:
Im not bashing mods. I think you need to message Ric about a discussion we had and what i promised. Its not mod bashing its called honesty.
Click to expand...
I'm not even sure why you come on the board when all you do is publicly and privately whine about it,play the victim,and get your knickers in a twist when no one buys into your theories and agendas.Odd doesn't even begin to describe you.
 
Does anyone still believe that Syria/Russia were responsible for the chemical attack in Douma?
 
SWP's back said:
Who do you think was responsible?

My answer was absolutely fine given the way it was asked with an implication that people probably wouldn’t or shouldn’t still believe that.
Click to expand...
I would suggest it was al nusra or one of their affiliates seeing as they openly boasted about having chlorine and it was chlorine which has been found by the OPCW. One of the canisters which was used as a justification for trump,may and macron to carry out the air strikes had imploded and split. An MIT weapons expert suggested that missiles dropped from a plane explode, not implode. It’s his conclusion that it was placed on the ground and had explosives placed on top of it and detonated, causing a crater, crush and inward split.
Doesn’t it seem even slightly suspicious to you that straight after trump says regime change isn’t a priority, a chemical attack happens?
Straight after he states that the war is coming to an end, another chemical attack?

This whole mess and involvement in it is just as bad, if not worse, than the WMD in Iraq farce. I only asked who still believed it was Syria and or Russia to see who’d visit this topic again to admit that they were wrong when it all unfolds.
 
2sheikhs said:
I would suggest it was al nusra or one of their affiliates seeing as they openly boasted about having chlorine and it was chlorine which has been found by the OPCW. One of the canisters which was used as a justification for trump,may and macron to carry out the air strikes had imploded and split. An MIT weapons expert suggested that missiles dropped from a plane explode, not implode. It’s his conclusion that it was placed on the ground and had explosives placed on top of it and detonated, causing a crater, crush and inward split.
Doesn’t it seem even slightly suspicious to you that straight after trump says regime change isn’t a priority, a chemical attack happens?
Straight after he states that the war is coming to an end, another chemical attack?

This whole mess and involvement in it is just as bad, if not worse, than the WMD in Iraq farce. I only asked who still believed it was Syria and or Russia to see who’d visit this topic again to admit that they were wrong when it all unfolds.
Click to expand...
I take it you didn't see the evidence published by the OPCW that strongly suggested that the chlorine canister was dropped from an aircraft.

"The FFM team visited Locations 2 and 4, where it observed the presence of an industrial gas cylinder on a top floor patio at Location 2, and the presence of a similar cylinder lying on the bed of a top floor apartment at Location 4. Close to the location of each cylinder there were crater-like openings in the respective reinforced concrete roofs. Work is ongoing to assess the association of these cylinders with the incident, the relative damage to the cylinders and the roofs, and how the cylinders arrived at their respective locations."
https://www.opcw.org/fileadmin/OPCW/S_series/2018/en/s-1645-2018_e_.pdf Section 2.6

Or maybe it was just coincidence that there were holes in the concrete roofs above where the cylinders were found?

We'll no doubt find out the full story when the final report is issued but if I had to put money on it I wouldn't bet on those holes in the roof being caused by anything else.
 
west didsblue said:
I take it you didn't see the evidence published by the OPCW that strongly suggested that the chlorine canister was dropped from an aircraft.

"The FFM team visited Locations 2 and 4, where it observed the presence of an industrial gas cylinder on a top floor patio at Location 2, and the presence of a similar cylinder lying on the bed of a top floor apartment at Location 4. Close to the location of each cylinder there were crater-like openings in the respective reinforced concrete roofs. Work is ongoing to assess the association of these cylinders with the incident, the relative damage to the cylinders and the roofs, and how the cylinders arrived at their respective locations."
https://www.opcw.org/fileadmin/OPCW/S_series/2018/en/s-1645-2018_e_.pdf Section 2.6

Or maybe it was just coincidence that there were holes in the concrete roofs above where the cylinders were found?

We'll no doubt find out the full story when the final report is issued but if I had to put money on it I wouldn't bet on those holes in the roof being caused by anything else.
Click to expand...
I’ve read all 26 pages of the report. Where does the OPCW state that these cylinders were fired from a plane?
 
2sheikhs said:
I’ve read all 26 pages of the report. Where does the OPCW state that these cylinders were fired from a plane?
Click to expand...
“8.11 The FFM had full access to other areas of interest within the same building, namely the balcony where the cylinder had allegedly impacted, the apartment directly below this, and the basement of the same apartment block.”

“8.12 Work is in progress regarding the location of the cylinder, its provenance, and the damage to both the reinforced concrete balcony and the cylinder. A comprehensive analysis by experts in the relevant fields will be required to provide a competent assessment of the relative damage.”
 
SWP's back said:
“8.11 The FFM had full access to other areas of interest within the same building, namely the balcony where the cylinder had allegedly impacted, the apartment directly below this, and the basement of the same apartment block.”

“8.12 Work is in progress regarding the location of the cylinder, its provenance, and the damage to both the reinforced concrete balcony and the cylinder. A comprehensive analysis by experts in the relevant fields will be required to provide a competent assessment of the relative damage.”
Click to expand...
“Allegedly impacted”.
It’s alleged that it was fired from a plane.
They’re not confirming that it was fired from a plane at all. In fact, they’re at pains to explain that their job isn’t to point the finger but to analyse evidence, something which an easily influenced, trigger happy president should have done before launching air strikes.
As I’ve started previously, the “evidence” put forward by the White House was debunked immediately as a physical impossibility.
 
2sheikhs said:
“Allegedly impacted”.
It’s alleged that it was fired from a plane.
They’re not confirming that it was fired from a plane at all. In fact, they’re at pains to explain that their job isn’t to point the finger but to analyse evidence, something which an easily influenced, trigger happy president should have done before launching air strikes.
As I’ve started previously, the “evidence” put forward by the White House was debunked immediately as a physical impossibility.
Click to expand...

I’m not sure what you’re trying to say. You asked where it says it fell from a plane. I pointed out what evidence they’d found. A hole in a reinforced concrete roof with the canister bomb underneath was the clue.

By the way, their job would have been to point the finger but Russia used their veto at the Security Council to stop the OPCW from being able to do so. Funny that isn’t it.
 
west didsblue said:
Absolutely right if it falls from a plane. If someone puts it on the roof it will stay on the roof.
Click to expand...
As the one on the road was forced into the ground, crushed and ruptured, explosives placed on top of an object and detonated will force the object downwards. In this case, through the ceiling and into the room below.
These industrial gas cylinders are 122mm pipes. The same as used in ground launched pipe bombs. The physical, photographic evidence shows implosion. The only explanation for the damage to the cylinder is that it had explosives placed on top of it. It’s basic physics.
 
SWP's back said:
I’m not sure what you’re trying to say. You asked where it says it fell from a plane. I pointed out what evidence they’d found. A hole in a reinforced concrete roof with the canister bomb underneath was the clue.

By the way, their job would have been to point the finger but Russia used their veto at the Security Council to stop the OPCW from being able to do so. Funny that isn’t it.
Click to expand...
Are you suggesting that a hole in a roof can only be caused by a missile from a plane?
Would placing explosives on a roof and being detonated not cause any damage? Is this what you’re suggesting?
 
2sheikhs said:
As the one on the road was forced into the ground, crushed and ruptured, explosives placed on top of an object and detonated will force the object downwards. In this case, through the ceiling and into the room below.
These industrial gas cylinders are 122mm pipes. The same as used in ground launched pipe bombs. The physical, photographic evidence shows implosion. The only explanation for the damage to the cylinder is that it had explosives placed on top of it. It’s basic physics.
Click to expand...
Seeing as we are both posting from the OPCW’s actual material, can you give some links to all of this ‘stuff’ you’re saying.

And let me get this straight, you’re saying the canister that was found underneath a hole in a reinforced concrete roof, rather than having fallen from a plane and crashed through, had in fact, been placed on the roof and then had explosives layered on top of it?
 
2sheikhs said:
Are you suggesting that a hole in a roof can only be caused by a missile from a plane?
Would placing explosives on a roof and being detonated not cause any damage? L
Click to expand...
No. Not in the way you suggest. Not at all. No. Nope.

And are you using the terms missile and bomb (from a plane) interchangeably? You’re aware of the difference between the two?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top