We’re bombing Syria

[2sheikhs]

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?

I can see what you’re doing. It’s the same as usual. You’re not interested in winning THE argument but just interested in winning AN argument. You’ll try and deflect this onto semantics as a side issue.
All this “no nope not at all” is bollocks to try and convince people that you’re some kind of sage.
Just stick to the actual evidence.
How does an explosive munition fired from a plane detonate and crush in on itself, rupture and implode? Once you’ve answered this physical impossibility, we can then move on to the usual name calling and expletives you’re so fond of.

 

[2sheikhs]

For anyone who just pops into this thread but gets tired of the same people going round in circles, just look at the article by Professor Theodore Postol.

 

[west didsblue]

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.

I'll wait for the final OPCW report because I don't believe you know what you're talking about and it contradicts most things I've read about it.

 

[2sheikhs]

I'll wait for the final OPCW report because I don't believe you know what you're talking about and it contradicts most things I've read about it.

The only thing I’ve stated are physical facts from the evidence put forward.
To just state “you don’t know what you’re talking about” contradicts what a professor in the field has proven. His words, not mine.
You say that you’ll wait for the final report. Pity Trump and his hawks didn’t wait for conclusive proof.

 

[SWP's back]

I can see what you’re doing. It’s the same as usual. You’re not interested in winning THE argument but just interested in winning AN argument. You’ll try and deflect this onto semantics as a side issue.
All this “no nope not at all” is bollocks to try and convince people that you’re some kind of sage.
Just stick to the actual evidence.
How does an explosive munition fired from a plane detonate and crush in on itself, rupture and implode? Once you’ve answered this physical impossibility, we can then move on to the usual name calling and expletives you’re so fond of.

No, what I am doing is asking what the fuck you are on about. You’ve not presented one piece of anything to back up your claims.

Putting a canister on a roof then piling explosives over it does not create a nice neat hole and leave the canister under it. You said it was basic physics before but it’s not physics in the slightest. It’s all in your head.

As for the canister crushing in on itself, go to the 10th story of a building and drop a full coke can off it and see what it looks like afterwards. Then remove your tin foil hat and wait for the final report.

I also notice you ignored the fact (an actual fact, not the sort you’ve been mentioning) that the only reason the OPCW aren’t allowed to point fingers is because Russia vetoed motion to give them that power after they pointed their fingers at Syria last time.

 

[SWP's back]

The only thing I’ve stated are physical facts from the evidence put forward.

There you go again. What you’ve posted wouldn’t be recognisable as a fact in a month of Sundays.

 

[west didsblue]

The only thing I’ve stated are physical facts from the evidence put forward.
To just state “you don’t know what you’re talking about” contradicts what a professor in the field has proven. His words, not mine.
You say that you’ll wait for the final report. Pity Trump and his hawks didn’t wait for conclusive proof.

Pointless discussion. You’re not stating facts. Maybe if you provide a link to this professor’s proof I might take you more seriously.

 

[2sheikhs]

Sigh. Here we go again.
Look, for anyone who’s interested in what’s going on in Syria, don’t bother with the arguments on here. Look at all the alternatives. Check out the OPCW reports. Check out what Theodore Postol says. George Galloway has one point of view, as does Tulsi Gabbard. The mainstream media have their take on it.When you’ve seen opposing opinions from the people who actually know what they’re talking about, then decide.
The only thing you’re likely to get from this thread is a few new buzzwords.
Make your own minds up.

 

[Homar]

Funny how they failed to find traces of any nerve agents, despite the US having a “high confidence” of their use. Months after the coordinated illegal act of aggression against Syria, all we have is a report that suggests the possible use of Chlorine gas, with no substantive evidence that points to the culprit. The US has still failed to present one shred of evidence to give validity to their claims.

 

[west didsblue]

Sigh. Here we go again.
Look, for anyone who’s interested in what’s going on in Syria, don’t bother with the arguments on here. Look at all the alternatives. Check out the OPCW reports. Check out what Theodore Postol says. George Galloway has one point of view, as does Tulsi Gabbard. The mainstream media have their take on it.When you’ve seen opposing opinions from the people who actually know what they’re talking about, then decide.
The only thing you’re likely to get from this thread is a few new buzzwords.
Make your own minds up.

I’ve checked what Postol has said and have read various articles thoroughly debunking his claims. George Galloway is about as credible as my cat when it comes to opinions about anything at all.