Reply With QuoteWas Saddam a US proxy?Originally Posted by LordKenwyne
| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
There were so many groups involved in the Lebanese Civil War it was just impossible to understand what was going on there. I don't think even Splott Dave would dare to pontificate on it. It reminded me of the comment about the Schleswig-Holstein Question :
"Only three people have ever really understood the Schleswig-Holstein business—the Prince Consort, who is dead—a German professor, who has gone mad—and I, who have forgotten all about it."
Was Saddam a US proxy?
What was it that George Bush said? “Fool me once shame on you. Fool me… can’t get fooled again.”
UN Team Heard Claims of ‘Staged’ Chemical Attacks
https://consortiumnews.com/2016/09/0...mical-attacks/
Exclusive: A widely touted U.N. report accusing the Syrian government of two chlorine-gas attacks relied on shaky evidence and brushed aside witness testimony that claimed some incidents were staged, reports Robert Parry.
United Nations investigators encountered evidence that alleged chemical weapons attacks by the Syrian military were staged by jihadist rebels and their supporters, but still decided to blame the government for two incidents in which chlorine was allegedly dispersed via improvised explosives dropped by helicopters.
In both cases, the Syrian government denied that it had any aircraft in the areas at the times of the purported attacks, but the U.N. team rejected that explanation with the curious argument that Syria failed to provide flight records to corroborate the absence of any flights. Yet, if there had been no flights, there would be no flight records.
Rewind back to 2013..
Before we Bomb Syria, Shouldn't we Seek Proof of Guilt?
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co....of-guilt-.html
The pathetic bleating flock of the British political media are helping to beat the drums for war. Yet again.
Late last week, the BBC began blasting the airwaves with stories about a chemical weapons attack in the suburbs of Damascus. Initially, its reporters and presenters were reasonably careful to point out that the videos on which this claim was based were unverified - and in fact impossible to verify. As has since become quite clear, the site of the alleged atrocity is very difficult to reach. This fact would be well-known to those who released the films. Indeed, they are in a position to make the site hard to reach. This is by no means the first such allegation that has been made. No reliable proof has ever been produced of any of them.
But bit by bit, this caution lessened. The more the claims were repeated, and the more the films were shown, the more commentators and reporters would say that it was ‘almost certain’ or ‘increasingly likely’ that the Syrian government’s armed forces were responsible for a huge chemical warfare attack on civilians, in the suburbs of the capital city.
In a slow news week, the unpopular papers and then the popular papers, joined in with their own coverage. Even some normally-sceptical writers and commentators were regrettably swept up in proclaiming the likelihood of the truth of the story. It is becoming increasingly risky to voice doubt. What if it’s true? How will the doubters look then? Well, when it's proved to be true, I’ll accept it is true. But until then, I won’t. I won't be frightened into abandoning the rules of evidence, and nor should you be.
4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. These include Cicero's "cui bono?" (of which it can be said that Cicero understood the importance of having evidence to back it up) and Conan Doyle's "once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth". What these phrases have in common is that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any responsibility to produce positive, hard evidence themselves: you simply "eliminate the impossible" (i.e. say the official account can't stand scrutiny) which means that the wild allegation of your choice, based on "cui bono?" (which is always the government) is therefore the truth.
You boys are like your own parody.
Last edited by TruBlue; 16-10-16 at 12:29.
That happens all the time, why would the BBC have to make a fake Panorama story about chemical attacks around the same time if they had real stories to report on? it does not add up, if I remember right from all the info the Panorama team just happened to be passing this place in the arse end of nowhere when they made their film, yeah ok.What was it that George Bush said? “Fool me once shame on you. Fool me… can’t get fooled again.”
UN Team Heard Claims of ‘Staged’ Chemical Attacks
https://consortiumnews.com/2016/09/0...mical-attacks/
Exclusive: A widely touted U.N. report accusing the Syrian government of two chlorine-gas attacks relied on shaky evidence and brushed aside witness testimony that claimed some incidents were staged, reports Robert Parry.
United Nations investigators encountered evidence that alleged chemical weapons attacks by the Syrian military were staged by jihadist rebels and their supporters, but still decided to blame the government for two incidents in which chlorine was allegedly dispersed via improvised explosives dropped by helicopters.
In both cases, the Syrian government denied that it had any aircraft in the areas at the times of the purported attacks, but the U.N. team rejected that explanation with the curious argument that Syria failed to provide flight records to corroborate the absence of any flights. Yet, if there had been no flights, there would be no flight records.
Rewind back to 2013..
Before we Bomb Syria, Shouldn't we Seek Proof of Guilt?
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co....of-guilt-.html
The pathetic bleating flock of the British political media are helping to beat the drums for war. Yet again.
Late last week, the BBC began blasting the airwaves with stories about a chemical weapons attack in the suburbs of Damascus. Initially, its reporters and presenters were reasonably careful to point out that the videos on which this claim was based were unverified - and in fact impossible to verify. As has since become quite clear, the site of the alleged atrocity is very difficult to reach. This fact would be well-known to those who released the films. Indeed, they are in a position to make the site hard to reach. This is by no means the first such allegation that has been made. No reliable proof has ever been produced of any of them.
But bit by bit, this caution lessened. The more the claims were repeated, and the more the films were shown, the more commentators and reporters would say that it was ‘almost certain’ or ‘increasingly likely’ that the Syrian government’s armed forces were responsible for a huge chemical warfare attack on civilians, in the suburbs of the capital city.
In a slow news week, the unpopular papers and then the popular papers, joined in with their own coverage. Even some normally-sceptical writers and commentators were regrettably swept up in proclaiming the likelihood of the truth of the story. It is becoming increasingly risky to voice doubt. What if it’s true? How will the doubters look then? Well, when it's proved to be true, I’ll accept it is true. But until then, I won’t. I won't be frightened into abandoning the rules of evidence, and nor should you be.
And the "doctor" was the daughter of one of the opposition leaders, still it was on Panorama and that's enough to get TruBlue salivating, it's all the proof he needsThat happens all the time, why would the BBC have to make a fake Panorama story about chemical attacks around the same time if they had real stories to report on? it does not add up, if I remember right from all the info the Panorama team just happened to be passing this place in the arse end of nowhere when they made their film, yeah ok.
I dont think the BBC particularly has to lie.
The British have said they've no interest in the conflict now.
Why would the BBC need to have a propaganda campaign to the dumb British ignorants who havent a clue.
They don't have to fuel the conflict, assad has done a good job of that by murdering innocent people.
And the sunnis wont stop until he is dead. That is a fact. And he knows it. That is why he drops chlorine on sunni towns.
I forgot about her, relatives can come in handy can't they, remember Nayirah and her false testimony? it got shown just about everywhere.And the "doctor" was the daughter of one of the opposition leaders, still it was on Panorama and that's enough to get TruBlue salivating, it's all the proof he needs
Nayirah al-Ṣabaḥ in tears during her testimony. It was later revealed that she was the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States and that her testimony could not be verified.
Out of interest how do you and Gluey know she's related?I forgot about her, relatives can come in handy can't they, remember Nayirah and her false testimony? it got shown just about everywhere.
Nayirah al-Ṣabaḥ in tears during her testimony. It was later revealed that she was the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States and that her testimony could not be verified.
It really is childlike.
Panorama could well lie for dramatic affect.
But BBC panorama carrying out some grand propaganda war?
Laughable. In every way.
Yes, it is quite amusing
Yes, a programme averaging 2 million viewers would try to influence a conflict on the other side of the planet by lying to british people eating their turkey twizzlers for tea.Yes, it is quite amusing
I think the BBC would have had more traction by stopping bake off half way though (that thoroughly detestable cesspool of propaganda) and flashing straight to the war zone.
Sounds like you're another who will risk making the ultimate sacrifice in a manufactured conflict for the benefit of George and his friends. Remember not to bleat if you choose to obey the call to become human fodder.
Five minutes long. The problem for Brits is that so often the British poodle follows its American master.
Trublue you couldn't be more mistaken. If I am accused of beating my wife how do I produce "positive, hard evidence" that I am not beating my wife? It is up to my accusers to provide the evidence. This concept is known as "The Burden of Proof". That's another "stock phrase" to add to your list. By the time you've gathered enough of these "stock phrases" you might be equipped to think for yourself. It seems that like Conan Doyle you believe in fairy tales.
I have no intention of watching some tinfoil mongo video but does it really claim-
The confederates didn't shell fort sumter.
The German foreign minister didn't try to start a war between mexico and the U.S.
The japanese didn't bomb pearl harbour.
North korea didn't invade the south.
Watch the video. It ties in perfectly with this statement - “World events do not occur by accident. They are made to happen, whether it is to do with national issues or commerce; and most of them are staged and managed by those who hold the purse strings.”
Who said the above? Some mongo? Depends on one's point of view. It was made by Denis Healey. He wasn't the bumbling boyo he tried hard to portray, but an arch-globalist and a co-founder of the Bilderberg Group.
Don't confuse me with anyone else, I'm not calling you or anyone else brainwashed ect, I am explaining why I have doubts, to save me repeating myself here is my post from another Syria thread, I don't expect you to share the same doubts but surely you can understand why I have them?
http://www.ccmb.co.uk/showthread.php...=1#post4659033
The irony of you not realising the irony of your post is comical.
I don't think you know what irony means and I can't be bothered trying to work out what misunderstanding of the word could lead you to write that, but whatever the reason it is clear that you still don't understand the ludicrousness of your complaint.
The irony of you not realising the irony of your post is comical.
Probably for the best judging by your other posts.
No need to dumb us both down.
Posting Permissions
