The Salisbury poison gas incident.

[pinfireman]

18 hours ago, treetree said:

Can I suggest that anyone who thinks that governments don't lie to justify geopolitical / military policy read the following:

The incubator babies justification of Gulf War I. To summarise, PR company hired by Kuwait get a 14yr old girl to pretend to have been working in a hospital and gives testimony to having seen iraqi soldiers chucking babies out of incubators. All made up, but did the job of turning public opinion to supporting a war. 

https://www.nytimes.com/1992/01/15/opinion/deception-on-capitol-hill.html

And then Assad using chemical weapons (conveniently justifying American bombing). Anyway, turns out was probably the rebels https://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n08/seymour-m-hersh/the-red-line-and-the-rat-line

A Third World country, invaded by a much larger and far more powerful country, uses propaganda to try to motivate surrounding counries to help it? Nothing new there, but certainly not the motivation for the United Nations to support the subsequent invasion to kick out Iraq! 

And as for Assad, "probably was the rebels" is a million miles from "it was the rebels"...wonder what the political tendency of those posting that link?  And what do they give as a reason for the Russian bombing of Assads fellow Syrians, who want him deposed?  Whilst the Russians claim to be bombing ISIS, the Kurds and rebel Syrians seem to be taking all the hits.......?

However, It does not come as a surprise to most of us that governments lie to justify policy..................but instead of just putting forward those who are allies, why not include those who clearly are not?  A bit of impartiality?

16 hours ago, treetree said:

Probably not a direct conflict, but I get the impression that the prodding and poking of Russia that has been going on in recent years is being taken to the next stage. 

and they do not poke back?

[pinfireman]

15 hours ago, Rewulf said:

How does any war benefit any country? 

Doesn't seem to stop mankind's hunger for conflict does it? 

The winner might gain some territory, some resources, it might remove the threat of the other country doing it first. 

I don't know, why did the US go to Vietnam, why did Russia go to Afghanistan? 

A cynical man might think they just want to test their toys. 

Still not a direct answer? How would it benefit us?  Compared to the Russian war machine, we are a minnow..... US went to Vietnam to try to back up South Vietnam government from being swallowed up by the Communist North, they wanted to try to stop the spread of Chinese backed Communist influence throughout  South East Asia.....Russia  went into Afghanistan, to prop up a Communist style government, and to position themselves against the border with Pakistan, seen as a US ally at the time. With Indian / Pakistan relations being fragile at best, and with India politically leaning towards the Soviet Union, it probably convinced the Kremlin that it was a good move..........

8 hours ago, Hamster said:

It wouldn't and I don't believe the UK is courting war with Russia but it IS being sleep walked (by outside forces) into something potentially very dark. Logic says it won't be nuclear but too many Nato countries it seems are being manipulated against Russia. 

"Outside  forces"? Do tell................

3 hours ago, Mungler said:

Has anyone actually said the word ‘sheeple’ yet - I need it for a full house on my nut job conspiracy theory bingo card.

The 9/11 reference was a dead cert and got me my 4th corner...

Apparently I can win a snow globe containing a walrus in disguise on a hippo, or an elephant depending on your perspective.

You are currently in a winning position!

2 hours ago, panoma1 said:

I think keeping the Russians busy, not in a land war, but in other ways such as reciprocal cyber attacks, is a thing worth considering......no country has challenged them militarily recently, because no one wanted to provoke them, the West has just conveniently ignored and turned a blind eye to Russia's military and cyber aggression, and it has emboldened them............I feel because no one has effectively challenged them, it's led to  "the devil making work for idle hands"......keep them occupied keep them out of mischief!

[Mungler]

Oh come on, surely someone can call ‘house’ with “outside forces”

[pinfireman]

1 hour ago, Rewulf said:

Cyber aggression aside, which by the way BOTH of us do, what about OUR military aggression ?
We fueled the 'popular' uprising in Syria by supplying weapons and training to the  'opposition' ie, al quaeda offshoots like al nusra ect.
Im sure Assad is all the monster western media paint him to be, but hes also a Russian ally, so they prop him up with weapons and support, mostly with a mind to keeping their only Med port and strategic airbase.
So NATO arms the rebels, Russia arms the government, your first example of proxy war.
Or did you think all those TOW missiles,RPGs and millions of rounds of ammo get made in a shed in Raqqa ?
Meanwhile the country lies in ruins, hundreds of thousands dead, and the refugees flood Europe.
So we get the bill for supporting the war, the refugees, the terrorist attacks and all the aggravation associated.
The arms manufacturers have a another good year, and buy a new superyacht or private jet.
So how is that working out for the likes of you and me?

Rinse and repeat in Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq (Why did we invade them again, oh yes WMDs ) , and coming soon to ..Iran,NK maybe, the arms manufacturers (Sometimes called the MIC) are a hungry beast, and need to be fed.
You can only keep upgrading your peace time arsenal to a certain point (the public who pay for it ,get emotional about it) so the dogs of war need to be let off the leash occasionally.
And if no one will oblige, and get the ball rolling, you have to make it happen some other way.
Thats not conspiracy theory, thats conspiracy FACT.

 

There is no Evidence that "we" supplied weapons and training to al nusra, ...in fact, quite the opposite. I am always interested as to where all these "facts" come from, and the political leanings of those who make these allegations.....more propaganda?

6 minutes ago, Mungler said:

Oh come on, surely someone can call ‘house’ with “outside forces”

[Retsdon]

35 minutes ago, pinfireman said:

There is no Evidence that "we" supplied weapons and training to al nusra, ...in fact, quite the opposite. I am always interested as to where all these "facts" come from, and the political leanings of those who make these allegations.....more propaganda?

Are these Green Berets engaging in anti-western propaganda do you think?

 https://sofrep.com/63764/us-special-forces-sabotage-white-house-policy-gone-disastrously-wrong-with-covert-ops-in-syria/

Edited March 17, 2018 by Retsdon

[pinfireman]

48 minutes ago, Retsdon said:

Are these Green Berets engaging in anti-western propaganda do you think?

 https://sofrep.com/63764/us-special-forces-sabotage-white-house-policy-gone-disastrously-wrong-with-covert-ops-in-syria/

Having waded through that, it is quite clear that we did not "supply"  and train al nusra...........the TOW weapons that they had acquired came via captured ones from the various splinter groups making up the FSA.....

[Hamster]

2 hours ago, pinfireman said:

Having waded through that, it is quite clear that we did not "supply"  and train al nusra...........the TOW weapons that they had acquired came via captured ones from the various splinter groups making up the FSA.....

When you say we, do you include Saudi Arabia in that ? Where do you suppose the arms (much of it very sophisticated) for terrorists that the West/US likes comes from ? 

Edited March 17, 2018 by Hamster

[Walker570]

Just as an aside ....Salisbury is a ghost town, trade has fallen and ordinary people running businesses are struggling. Wouldn't it be nice to arrange a Crowd Funding but not money,

people.  One Saturday for as many as possible to spend a couple of hours in Salisbury, have a meal, buy a pint, buy some produce to take home. Now that would in my view be a Churchillian Spirit on show.  Unfortunately I am not clever enough to arrange such a thing.

[Rewulf]

4 hours ago, pinfireman said:

Still not a direct answer? How would it benefit us?  Compared to the Russian war machine, we are a minnow..... US went to Vietnam to try to back up South Vietnam government from being swallowed up by the Communist North, they wanted to try to stop the spread of Chinese backed Communist influence throughout  South East Asia.....Russia  went into Afghanistan, to prop up a Communist style government, and to position themselves against the border with Pakistan, seen as a US ally at the time. With Indian / Pakistan relations being fragile at best, and with India politically leaning towards the Soviet Union, it probably convinced the Kremlin that it was a good move..........

"Outside  forces"? Do tell................

You are currently in a winning position!

That worked out well didn't it  and what happened after they left ,did the whole of South East Asia became communist?

 

4 hours ago, pinfireman said:

There is no Evidence that "we" supplied weapons and training to al nusra, ...in fact, quite the opposite. I am always interested as to where all these "facts" come from, and the political leanings of those who make these allegations.....more propaganda?

Where did you get the FACT that we didn't? 

There's tonnes of evidence we did ,and do still.

2 hours ago, pinfireman said:

Having waded through that, it is quite clear that we did not "supply"  and train al nusra...........the TOW weapons that they had acquired came via captured ones from the various splinter groups making up the FSA.....

Are you serious? 

So we thought we would give weapons to one group but not the one they were fighting the same enemy with, and hope they wouldn't have the odd swap?

Why do you think we didn't give them any anti aircraft missiles? Which they desperately wanted?

Of course we knew where the weapons would end up, that's really naive.

Edited March 17, 2018 by Rewulf
Typo

[Retsdon]

2 hours ago, pinfireman said:

Having waded through that, it is quite clear that we did not "supply"  and train al nusra...........the TOW weapons that they had acquired came via captured ones from the various splinter groups making up the FSA.....

You could hardly have got your toes wet! From the very first paragraph.."

“Nobody believes in it. You’re like, ‘***** this,’” a former Green Beret says of America’s covert and clandestine programs to train and arm Syrian militias. “Everyone on the ground knows they are jihadis. No one on the ground believes in this mission or this effort, and they know they are just training the next generation of jihadis, so they are sabotaging it by saying, ‘ **** it, who cares?’” “I don’t want to be responsible for Nusra guys saying they were trained by Americans,” 

So are you asserting that these Special Forces were mistaken as to the identity of their trainees?

And from further down...

That Nusra captured TOW missiles from the now-defunct Syrian Revolutionary Front is unsurprising, but that the same anti-tank weapons supplied to the FSA ended up in Nusra hands is even less surprising when one understands the internal dynamics of the Syrian conflict.

Distinguishing between the FSA and al-Nusra is impossible, because they are virtually the same organization. As early as 2013, FSA commanders were defecting with their entire units to join al-Nusra. There, they still retain the FSA monicker, but it is merely for show, to give the appearance of secularism so they can maintain access to weaponry provided by the CIA and Saudi intelligence services. The reality is that the FSA is little more than a cover for the al-Qaeda-affiliated al-Nusra.

And do you think that the people responsible for supplying these weapons were so ill-informed  as to be less aware of the situation than their own NCOs and privates? No, they were aware all right, but it suited them to play dumb. It's called plausible deniability - although these days they barely bother with the ''plausible' part. As long as they can deny it, they don't care. 

[Hamster]

Terrorists hiding in plain sight and sheeple preferring to turn a blind eye because as mentioned earlier they just cannot bring themselves to accept they're being lied to. There is a huge amount of evidence on the net that proves our daily news is poisoned 95% untruths. 

[Scully]

1 hour ago, Hamster said:

Terrorists hiding in plain sight and sheeple preferring to turn a blind eye because as mentioned earlier they just cannot bring themselves to accept they're being lied to. There is a huge amount of evidence on the net that proves our daily news is poisoned 95% untruths. 

Ok. Now I’ll ask you, as the other conspiracy conspirator doesn’t seem willing to answer. You seem pretty keen to criticise all those who ridicule what you claim to be facts, so tell us; what do you intend to do with all this information and the revelations you’re so intent to inform us we are all ignorant of, and whom do you intend to tell? Are YOU going to contact the media or the relevant authorities, or do you not have the courage of your convictions either? 

[Retsdon]

11 hours ago, pinfireman said:

Having waded through that, it is quite clear that we did not "supply"  and train al nusra...........the TOW weapons that they had acquired came via captured ones from the various splinter groups making up the FSA.....

Clear to you,, but not clear to the people training them? From the Sofrep link above...

"Meanwhile, in Turkey, a similar quagmire unfolded. Among the rebels that U.S. Special Forces and Turkish Special Forces were training, “A good 95 percent of them were either working in terrorist organizations or were sympathetic to them,” a Green Beret associated with the program said, adding, “A good majority of them admitted that they had no issues with ISIS and that their issue was with the Kurds and the Syrian regime.” "

As for the TOW weapons - 

"That Nusra captured TOW missiles from the now-defunct Syrian Revolutionary Front is unsurprising, but that the same anti-tank weapons supplied to the FSA ended up in Nusra hands is even less surprising when one understands the internal dynamics of the Syrian conflict.

"Distinguishing between the FSA and al-Nusra is impossible, because they are virtually the same organization. As early as 2013, FSA commanders were defecting with their entire units to join al-Nusra. There, they still retain the FSA monicker, but it is merely for show, to give the appearance of secularism so they can maintain access to weaponry provided by the CIA and Saudi intelligence services. The reality is that the FSA is little more than a cover for the al-Qaeda-affiliated al-Nusra."

Of course, it could be argued that supplying Al Nusra with training and weaponry was an accident - the result of military incompetence rather than a deliberate policy. I have my doubts about that, quite honestly. I think that as far as the CIA was concerned, any group fighting to overthrow the Syrian government was worth supporting. But even if you subscribe to the incompetence theory, there comes a point where incompetence morphs into criminal negligence. And handing out advanced weaponry to unknown ragtags to use against their own governments falls into that category.

5 hours ago, Scully said:

Ok. Now I’ll ask you, as the other conspiracy conspirator doesn’t seem willing to answer. You seem pretty keen to criticise all those who ridicule what you claim to be facts, so tell us; what do you intend to do with all this information and the revelations you’re so intent to inform us we are all ignorant of, and whom do you intend to tell? Are YOU going to contact the media or the relevant authorities, or do you not have the courage of your convictions either? 

Pease read the Sofrep link above. it's from a magazine that is written for US Forces personnel!  And the whole point of the article is to discuss the training and supply of Al Nusra and other Jihadis. So there are no revelations  be revealed, or brought to the attention of 'the relevant authorities'  - the facts are  out in the open and in plain sight! They might unpalatable facts for sure, and that's why they've been largely ignored by a main stream media who support the western agenda to overthrow the Syrian Ba'aath regime. But that doesn't make the facts themselves any less true. That you choose to ignore them is fine - that's up to you.. But honestly, it would probably be better not go around calling people 'conspiracy conspirators' just because they are more open-minded and better informed than you are. It's both pointless, and frankly, not particularly well-mannered.

[treetree]

17 hours ago, pinfireman said:

 Nothing new there, but certainly not the motivation for the United Nations to support the subsequent invasion to kick out Iraq! 

It wasn't meant / needed as justification for UN/Nato intervention. It was to sell the war and gain the backing of the public, who now thought it was a moral need to go to war. 

See also Tony Blair's 45 minute claim for Gulf War II. And don't even mention Cameron`s Libya intervention, and the ongoing consequences from that. Oh, and NATOs eastward expansion, despite assurances this would never happen. 

Edited March 18, 2018 by treetree
Changes

[Mungler]

12 hours ago, Hamster said:

Terrorists hiding in plain sight and sheeple preferring to turn a blind eye because as mentioned earlier they just cannot bring themselves to accept they're being lied to. There is a huge amount of evidence on the net that proves our daily news is poisoned 95% untruths. 

 

HOUSE!

[Scully]

4 hours ago, Retsdon said:

 

Pease read the Sofrep link above. it's from a magazine that is written for US Forces personnel!  And the whole point of the article is to discuss the training and supply of Al Nusra and other Jihadis. So there are no revelations  be revealed, or brought to the attention of 'the relevant authorities'  - the facts are  out in the open and in plain sight! They might unpalatable facts for sure, and that's why they've been largely ignored by a main stream media who support the western agenda to overthrow the Syrian Ba'aath regime. But that doesn't make the facts themselves any less true. That you choose to ignore them is fine - that's up to you.. But honestly, it would probably be better not go around calling people 'conspiracy conspirators' just because they are more open-minded and better informed than you are. It's both pointless, and frankly, not particularly well-mannered.

You're mistaking ridicule and derision for a closed mind. I have an open mind but am simply indifferent......I have an open mind but being averagely intelligent I can draw my own conclusions, and these are that you and Hamster are as mad as hatters. However, my mind is sufficiently open to realise that that in itself doesn't mean you are. 

As a teenager I was into all manner of subterfuge and clandestine conspiracy theories. The Chariot of the Gods, the death of Marilyn Monroe, the JFK shooting, aliens etc etc, and if the web had been available to me then who knows what I may have become. But I grew up, raised a family and my priorities changed to the extent that I stopped caring what allegedly happened at Roswell. 

Sometime ago in another thread I mentioned the fact that a small childs lifeless body floating face down on a shoreline hadn't even stirred a noticeable reaction in the UK conscience. I was enraged at the film of a toddler in the back of a Syrian ambulance covered in blood and dust, but obviously not enraged enough. Why should I be? My kids are fine and healthy and being reactionary to the point of getting myself noticed would mean disrupting my comfortable life, possibly the end of my shooting ( cos we're being watched you know  )  and causing stress to those who care for me. I simply don't care enough to jeopardise what I have. 

It's fine and dandy , and sooooo easy to shout on FB, Twitter and other social media such as PW, and change your profile to a national flag ( ridiculous! ) click like and share  then sit back and feel all smug and reactionary before settling back on the sofa with a brew for a bit of channel hopping, but getting off your backside to actually do something means just that, getting off your backside and getting in the faces of those who matter by being confrontational. If YOU really care about your cause and are convinced of your facts and the validity of your cause then do something about it. Until then you're just another 'conspiracy conspirator' worthy of the ridicule you attract. 

[Scully]

1 hour ago, Mungler said:

 

HOUSE!

 Sorry....I shouldn't, but that just tickles me. 

[Mungler]

1 hour ago, Scully said:

 

It's fine and dandy , and sooooo easy to shout on FB, Twitter and other social media such as PW, and change your profile to a national flag ( ridiculous! ) click like and share  then sit back and feel all smug and reactionary before settling back on the sofa with a brew for a bit of channel hopping, but getting off your backside to actually do something means just that, getting off your backside and getting in the faces of those who matter by being confrontational. If YOU really care about your cause and are convinced of your facts and the validity of your cause then do something about it. Until then you're just another 'conspiracy conspirator' worthy of the ridicule you attract. 

 

This. It’s called ‘slacktivism’. Getting all riled up in the comfort of your own home, giving people a piece of your mind on line and pinging round a few sound bites / emojis and giffs. All utterly pointless.

[Rewulf]

2 hours ago, Scully said:

 

It's fine and dandy , and sooooo easy to shout on FB, Twitter and other social media such as PW, and change your profile to a national flag ( ridiculous! ) click like and share  then sit back and feel all smug and reactionary before settling back on the sofa with a brew for a bit of channel hopping, but getting off your backside to actually do something means just that, getting off your backside and getting in the faces of those who matter by being confrontational. If YOU really care about your cause and are convinced of your facts and the validity of your cause then do something about it. Until then you're just another 'conspiracy conspirator' worthy of the ridicule you attract. 

You're absolutely correct. 

32 minutes ago, Mungler said:

 

This. It’s called ‘slacktivism’. Getting all riled up in the comfort of your own home, giving people a piece of your mind on line and pinging round a few sound bites / emojis and giffs. All utterly pointless.

And so are you. 

But are you not just as guilty for calling people out on it? Why not just ignore them? It's just an opinion, and I've not seen anyone trying to blow up the houses of Parliament lately. 

[Mungler]

I think it’s why it’s a ‘discussion’ forum.

I do it because threads like this help me mentally update my ‘whose a nutter on here?’ list.

The bad news is that you’ve made it onto the list, but the good news is that you’re in the ‘well meaning and not dangerous’ sub category.

Whilst you won’t be asked to babysit my kids any time soon, I think I would enjoy a round of clays with you.

[amateur]

1 minute ago, Mungler said:

I think it’s why it’s a ‘discussion’ forum.

I do it because threads like this help me mentally update my ‘whose a nutter on here?’ list.

The bad news is that you’ve made it onto the list, but the good news is that you’re in the ‘well meaning and not dangerous’ sub category.

Whilst you won’t be asked to babysit my kids any time soon, I think I would enjoy a round of clays with you.

Classic

[Rewulf]

17 minutes ago, Mungler said:

I think it’s why it’s a ‘discussion’ forum.

I do it because threads like this help me mentally update my ‘whose a nutter on here?’ list.

The bad news is that you’ve made it onto the list, but the good news is that you’re in the ‘well meaning and not dangerous’ sub category.

Whilst you won’t be asked to babysit my kids any time soon, I think I would enjoy a round of clays with you.

Why, thank you very much. But. 

You just said its a 'discussion', you've not discussed, you've ridiculed and insulted people who have a different option to yours, an opinion you have deemed as harmless yet deluded, but now insinuate might be 'dangerous'? 

All I've said is you can't trust the government to tell the truth on certain matters, a fact that is easily provable. 

I thought better of you to be honest, but once you got the bit between your teeth, you went as rabid on it as any conspiracy theorist. 

Enjoy your day. 

[Scotty99]

The Russians have form....starting with Markov poisoned with ricin, Litvinenko with polonium and now Skripal with Novichuk.

[Mungler]

I think you will find there was a decent discussion and debate at the start, but when it became clear to me that the conspiracy theorists with their diet of Russia Today and ‘dark forces’ were absolutely searching for conspiracy and coukd just not accept the possibility that Putin (who is a gangster by any measure) was rubbing out  people who were very unpopular in Russia, then that’s when I gave up.

[12gauge82]

Although I'm of the thinking that Russia did it, is it really beyond the realms of possibility it was another faction, it wasn't so long ago, the head of the cia wanted to shoot down one of their own passenger planes killimg hundreds on board and blame it on Cuba, to justify starting a war, I can fully understand people not trusting our own governent and am open to what ever evidence I see, the truth of course is we'll only see what our government want us to see unless there's a leak by wikieleaks ect.