Are our political "leaders" liars or idiots ?

[Leekbrookgull]

Here's the thing. That attack on you was stupid and simplistic, no doubt. But there's a reason you are perceived this way, and why you're ignored or ridiculed so much. Because you have (and believe) a CT for EVERY. SINGLE. EVENT. And when you present it to NSC, you link to unsubstantiated, unverified, unproven websites with little or no evidential proof of your argument, often CT blogs or half-baked youtube videos scrappily edited together on windows movie maker.

You say you want to discuss the theories or 'proof' you're putting forward, but when it's easily debunked or discredited you dodge the issue. Case in point: post 39 of this thread. You choose not to believe the 'western msm' out of principle, but choose to believe an article which uses the (pro-assad) russian government controlled media as an apparently impartial source. And again, post 46 - a perfectly reasonable and plausible explanation for the apparent time difference you use as central to your argument. You haven't replied to those posts. You haven't entered into the dialogue you supposedly crave because it doesn't suit your agenda.

You display all the classic, stereotypical characteristics of a tinfoil hatted conspiracy theorist - you're evasive, you're defensive, you post links with NO sources and NO proof which you believe without question over a MSM source like BBC or Sky, just because of what they are. No matter the subject or context, you point blank discredit anything and everything from those sources and believe any alternative source that you want to believe on principle. You never trust anything said by any person, company or institution in a position of influence and you believe they ALL have plans on world domination. I doubt you'll respond but if you do, try to at least respond to the points being made - it would be to your credit and would make you look less of a paranoid nutter.

FWIW: I'm not convinced the assad regime is necessarily behind it - I think the chemical attack is more or less irrefutable, but it isn't as clear who is responsible. Allegedly both sides have access to these materials, and the splintered and contradictory nature of the rebels' separate agendas (pro-democracy, radical islamist etc) make it difficult to discount that some rebel groups wouldn't consider pinning an attack on the assad regime to help their own cause. I think the UN need to be allowed to do their job, but also that the G8 nations have a responsibility to act in the defence of innocent Syrian civilians, however that may be. I'd like to see caution, and for lessons to be learned from Iraq and Afghanistan, but if the alternative is watching children slaughtered with nerve agents, then get some boots on the ground and show assad and the religious extremists looking to destabilise the whole region just what real power is.

Brighton,don't really know if this helps,re media. I watched the other night the Downing Street years and i think it was a sort of re-vamp of a previous series from a few years back,Thatcher,Kinnock etc were all there and we came to the miners strike. In the edition i saw it was clearly stated that had it not been for the UDM Thatcher would have lost,however at the time and i had just moved up here to North Staffordshire and miners in this area transferred to UDM pits coal was being not only mined but at the power stations over 12 months stock had been stock piled i was actually told (by UDM Miners and one or two other that worked in the power supply industry) that the country was never short of power. However in the edition i saw put out by the BBC the other night that was never said. Yes i like the BBC,John Simpsom,Jeremy Bowen etc i respect plus a few more,however want happens when stories hit the 'Newsdesk' is another matter ?

 

[warsaw]

As I said in my original post on this thread, there is certainly no appetite in either Washington or London 'to put boots on the ground'

As a matter of interest , IF it is proven, 100% guaranteed, that it was the Assad regime that committed these acts, would you still not back any military action?

If not, what exactly would you do?

So we won't put boots on the ground because there's no appetite for it, but we'll take the easy option of lobbing a few missiles. And when said missiles have killed MORE CIVILIANS than the chemical attacks our governments will be calling the mission a success.

Look, I can't decide where I stand on this but first of all I won't believe it when I'm told by a politician that there is incontovertible evidence that the regime were responsible for the chemical attack and I don't see how killing hundreds more civilians rights a wrong.........

 

[Dandyman]

This.

 

[Buzzer]

I mean soldiers dying in a dubious war. The way I worded it made it sound like I didn't want zombies getting involved.

 

[daveinprague]

War is a money spinner.

 

[beorhthelm]

As I said in my original post on this thread, there is certainly no appetite in either Washington or London 'to put boots on the ground'

its been quite apparent in Syria (somewhat like Libya and others before), that theres a reluctance to really get involved directly in these middle eastern issues. we cant afford it and Obama is i think genuinely conscious of not repeating the fudge ups of the past decade.

the stated line, chemical weapons, has been crossed. really given the decades old opposition to their use (near 100 years banned point out today), the surprise is that Russia hasn't joined in. end of the day, no intervention at this point says, not only is civil war and all that goes with that ok, but chemical weapons are ok too. might as well disband the UN as its not just toothless but pointless.

a few stategic cruise missile and stelath fighter strikes will be all that'll be applied here. or we could have sanctions. that'll stop em.

 

[Dandyman]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/27/military-syria-attacks


Former leaders of the British armed forces led objections on Tuesday to military strikes against Syria following last week's poison gas attack in Damascus, which killed hundreds and injured thousands.

General Lord Dannatt, former head of the British army, and Lord West, former first sea lord, both warned of unintended consequences if, as seems increasingly likely, US forces launch missiles against President's Bashar al-Assad's military facilities in the coming days.

A former UK ambassador to Syria, Sir Andrew Green, urged Russia and China to use their influence against Assad rather than military force while Lord King, the former defence secretary, said it was imperative to find a solution, "and it mustn't be military".

Backing strikes were the former prime minister Tony Blair, who warned of "the consequences of wringing our hands instead of putting them to work", and foreign policy analysts from Chatham House in London and the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington, who said Assad had crossed a red line by using chemical weapons.

Geoffrey Robertson QC said in the Times that there "is a right for regional groups like Nato and the Arab League to use force to stop crimes against humanity such as a state mass-murdering its citizens by poison gas". Robertson went on to say that the UN would not require a full mandate to go ahead with limited strikes as long as evidence was first established that the Assad regime was responsible for last week's attacks.

"It's wrong," said Dannatt of the strike plan being drawn up in Washington, Paris and London. "Because although undoubtedly by any moral standards at all using chemical weapons against your own people – which is what on the balance of probabilities it now seems Assad has done – [is wrong] this does not constitute an open invitation for the international community to impose themselves on the internal affairs of another country."

He told the BBC that the international community was "fractured" on the issue and one of the many unknowns about Syria was "what the effect of these strikes would be on the developments and consequences of the civil conflict".

Lord West, a former minister, urged diplomacy before military action and was among those worried the west could find itself sucked into a vortex of violence in the region. He told the Daily Mail he was "very wary" of an attack and said if Assad was responsible for the attack, there should be a UN resolution condemning him.

"The region is a powder keg," he said. "We simply can't predict which way military action will go."

Speaking later to Channel 4 News, Dannatt said David Cameron needed to use Thursday's recall of Parliament to convince the British people that military action is the right step. "A clear case will only be made if a strategic context of how such an intervention can be made is laid out clearly. For the objectives, the beginning, the middle, and the end – how it's all going to finish."

The former British ambassador to Washington, Sir Christopher Meyer, said the prime minister faced a "decision from hell".

Speaking on BBC2's Newsnight, he said: "It cannot be in the British national interest to see Assad disintegrate under the pressure of cruise missile attacks, and whatever else may be done, such that his stocks of chemical weapons fall out of his control into the hands of the extremist Jihadists among the rebels.

"This is why this decision on what to do next is truly the decision from hell."

The sense of military disquiet preceded the chemical attack. General Sir David Richards, who only stood down as chief of the defence staff earlier this summer, is understood to have previously cautioned against attacking Syria, while on Tuesday a former senior naval officer, Rear Admiral Chris Parry, said he believed London and Washington were repeating a mistake by turning to the military before properly establishing their objectives.

"More responsibility needs to be thrown at Russia and China," said Parry, who used to command the UK's amphibious task group. "Instead of sending cruise missiles into Syria we should be sending diplomatic cruise missiles into Russia and China. We need to make it clear that they have complicity in this."

He questioned the benefit to the west if attacks killed civilians and pointed out that it was not a simple question whose side the west is on. "We are not going to go on to the ground and separate these two fighting dogs," he said. "We are not sure who we are supposed to be supporting because they may be enemies of ours When the whole of the Middle East is in foment you do not need to throw another grenade in."

 

[Leekbrookgull]

Can you really argue agianst Sir Richard Dannatt,the key has to give proof to China and Russia which side has used WMD.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

if it were the Assad regime, I would apply sanctions and offer humanitarian aid.

Ouch - that'll teach them !!!!!!! Chemical weapon use should mean only one thing to those that use them - ultimate retaliation.

 

[Dandyman]

Ouch - that'll teach them !!!!!!! Chemical weapon use should mean only one thing to those that use them - ultimate retaliation.

Interesting - the UK and Germany both used chemical weapons in WW1 and Churchill authorised the use of poisoned gas against Arab civilians in the 1920's. Not sure if it is more or less vile than depleted uranium or drone attacks on Wedding parties.

 

[FREDBINNEY]

Interesting - the UK and Germany both used chemical weapons in WW1 and Churchill authorised the use of poisoned gas against Arab civilians in the 1920's. Not sure if it is more or less vile than depleted uranium or drone attacks on Wedding parties.

Yes , because the UK and US always deliberately target wedding parties don't they ?

 

[Mellor 3 Ward 4]

Interesting - the UK and Germany both used chemical weapons in WW1 and Churchill authorised the use of poisoned gas against Arab civilians in the 1920's. Not sure if it is more or less vile than depleted uranium or drone attacks on Wedding parties.

Obviously wrong, wrong and wrong.

Imo What Britain did nearly 100 years ago is really not relevant today.

 

[warsaw]

This is an post from the Daily Mail site from 29 January 2013
just cant believe what you read

http://web.archive.org/web/20130130...chemical-weapon-attack-Syria-blame-Assad.html

 

[Dandyman]

This is an post from the Daily Mail site from 29 January 2013
just cant believe what you read

http://web.archive.org/web/20130130...chemical-weapon-attack-Syria-blame-Assad.html

It's a fairly obvious fake - look at the Yank spelling in the strap line.

 

[beorhthelm]

Can you really argue agianst Sir Richard Dannatt,the key has to give proof to China and Russia which side has used WMD.

funny how these military leaders only make their concerns known once retired.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Interesting - the UK and Germany both used chemical weapons in WW1 and Churchill authorised the use of poisoned gas against Arab civilians in the 1920's. Not sure if it is more or less vile than depleted uranium or drone attacks on Wedding parties.

I understand that we also used to burn witches but back in this century .........

 

[Seagull over Canaryland]

funny how these military leaders only make their concerns known once retired.

Dannatt was pretty outspoken when he was still serving, made himself fairly unpopular with the then Govt. He generally talks sense and worth listening to.

Looks like the UK might be stepping back from the immediate military option, so maybe standing up for our own convictions rather the USA's, for a change. Sadly that makes us look ponderous over the humanitarian situation in Syria but then there are so many questions as to the medium term consequences of military action for the Region. I tend to agree it needs political pressure on Russia to intervene with Assad rather than military action.

 

[pastafarian]

The site these quotes below sit on does not matter, the quotes were said, and will not be presented on much of MSM - this is the issue i have - that the MSM is a propaganda tool - if you have not worked this out i feel for your ignorance.

But the website you posted earlier suggested the videos uploaded to youtube were done before the event(chemical attack) and therefore a staged event.

http://www.sott.net/article/265358-...uTube-day-BEFORE-attack-supposedly-took-place

i gave you a very reasonable answer as to why you have misinterpreted the information you have read on a website.
Im not surprised you have chosen to ignore this after all it doesnt fit with your preconceptions.

who is it that is being ignorant?

 

[drew]

If only the problems in Syria would disappear as quickly as Hybrid when his/her arguments are logically challenged!!!

 

[Dandyman]

Dannatt was pretty outspoken when he was still serving, made himself fairly unpopular with the then Govt. He generally talks sense and worth listening to.

Looks like the UK might be stepping back from the immediate military option, so maybe standing up for our own convictions rather the USA's, for a change. Sadly that makes us look ponderous over the humanitarian situation in Syria but then there are so many questions as to the medium term consequences of military action for the Region. I tend to agree it needs political pressure on Russia to intervene with Assad rather than military action.

Spot on. The two sides in Syria contain large numbers of dubious individuals and causes and there are a whole string of potential consequences to Western intervention. Thankfully at least some MPs are showing rather more sense and integrity than they did 10 years ago. (Although I still rate Robin Cook's resignation speach as one of the best statements to the Commons for a long time).