U.S. U.k and France target Assads regime.

[scott777]

Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.

Now, we have two chemical attacks in a short period of time, both have the spectre of Russia hanging over them, directly so with Salisbury, and as puppet master in Syria. So maybe the question is what the end goal was, knowing that strong condemnation and reaction would arise from both attacks.

Initially in Salisbury, I had presumed it was "pour encourager les autres". Given the rather limp response to the previous polonium attack against Litvinenko, maybe it was seen that May was an easy target, ably helped by Corbyn's stance, and that there wouldn't be an overly strong response. The propaganda machine (from all sides) raised a lot of questions and surprisingly people started to question HMG. The more time goes by, I think that maybe another part of this, was to weaken UK government. It certainly wasn't subtle, and I am sure that there are plenty of ways to kill someone without leaving such a calling card.

So Syria. What has Assad got to gain from a gas attack? He and his Russian and Iranian chums seem to be killing people quite effectively enough, without bringing down world condemnation for crossing a red line. Everyone knows that chemical attacks is going to bring more trouble on you, and surely it is on the face of it, more trouble than it is worth. So again, the various propaganda machines are in overdrive. It's the British which did it. There was no gas attack. It was the Russians. etc etc. Again Corbyn comes out and tries to destabilise the government. So the more time that goes by, the more I think that this was aimed at destabilising the West, and bringing divisions between a supposed weak Trump and weak May and weak Macron.

I think that we can see that that failed, even if the coalition only blew up some cattle sheds. It sent a message of unity and actually was quite clever in that there were no civilian casualties.

As I say, once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.

Spectre? Interesting choice of words. Sounds like James Bond. However, spectres are supernatural, or what many people would call 'fantasy'. Perhaps that more accurately describes the Russian link.

Corbyn has tried to destabilize a bad government. That's a good thing. If it was Putin, well done Putin. Of course that's doubtful.

[DeppityDawg]

I am inclined to agree with you, Boggart. The Russians in particular seem to have a very effective means of using what we would regard as the advantages of democracy, a free press and the ability of anyone to state an opinion (especially via web based systems), to dissemble, deceive and to throw doubt on a populous. It clearly worked in the USA in getting Trump elected, though it may not be certain that getting someone as unpredictable as Trump was that wise, even for them. It has had a similar effect here over Skripal and this chlorine attack. Both the UK and the USA are politically divided and, as such politically weak and it is hardly better in other parts of Europe. And none of this changes how Putin is viewed within Russia. It is a win-win for the Kremlin.

Should we start our own forum conspiracy club and call this

a "false false flag"? Then there would surely be someone who would come up with the theory that this is precisely what Western governments WANT us to think, and therefore it is a false false false flag. And so on.

Because none of our resident conspiracy theorists could ever come up with any conclusion that doesn't involve the West/our own government deceiving them, or others, or both. Surely it can't just be me that notices this. This is why I believe conspiracy theorist's almost always have a deep problem with guilt and self loathing.

[scott777]

Should we start our own forum conspiracy club and call this

a "false false flag"? Then there would surely be someone who would come up with the theory that this is precisely what Western governments WANT us to think, and therefore it is a false false false flag. And so on.

Because none of our resident conspiracy theorists could ever come up with any conclusion that doesn't involve the West/our own government deceiving them, or others, or both. Surely it can't just be me that notices this. This is why I believe conspiracy theorist's almost always have a deep problem with guilt and self loathing.

I don't see much in the way of your opinions on who is responsible for things. Sounds like an easy option -- 'I don't know, so I'll just keep my head buried in the sand'. In order to know any kind of truth, you have to consider all the options. Even in a court of law, a 'picture' is presented to the jury -- what the prosecution consider actually happened, which is merely a 'theory', given in absence of certainties. When you don't have video of everything that happened, you need to propose a 'most likely' course of events. It's done for a very good reason.

[DeppityDawg]

I don't see much in the way of your opinions on who is responsible for things. Sounds like an easy option -- 'I don't know, so I'll just keep my head buried in the sand'. In order to know any kind of truth, you have to consider all the options. Even in a court of law, a 'picture' is presented to the jury -- what the prosecution consider actually happened, which is merely a 'theory', given in absence of certainties. When you don't have video of everything that happened, you need to propose a 'most likely' course of events. It's done for a very good reason.

And, oddly enough, up pops the poster whose "most likely" course of events is always, without fail, that his own country and the west in general are responsible for everything that's wrong with the world. The poster influenced by websites and other conspiracy fruitcakes like Chomsky and thinks Assange is a "hero". Listen son, I've seen more dead bodies than you can shake a stick at, and there have been many times I wished I could bury my head in the sand. But in the real world, there are no good guys and bad guys, just days and nights to get through.

You are the poster who claimed videos of ISIS atrocities weren't real. Yet here you are claiming now that we should look at things and propose a "most likely" course of events. Except, we can claim anything we don't want to influence our theory doesn't exist. You are the worst kind of conspiracy theorist.

[DeppityDawg]

https://politicspoliticalforum.com/t...38#post1159538

I don't want to see beheadings or burning alive, I simply don't believe such films exist. That's my point, I strongly suspect they never existed, but are propaganda.

If you are sure they are "terrorists" I hope you can give me your particular definition.
Again, about their motives, my point is to question whether you know anything about them, beyond what you think they have done. There's a saying "know your enemy"; it's important to know motives for many reasons; if you don't, then it's impossible to say whether or not they are justified in their actions. If you didn't know Mr Camerons or Mr Blairs motivation for any of their acts of aggression, would you not question it?

Yes, "impossible to say". You have no hesitation when it comes to second guessing the motives of western leaders, but oddly enough, you can dismiss things that don't fit within your anti western narrative in the blink of an eye.

"I strongly suspect they never existed, but are propaganda....".

There are some people on this forum I wouldn't piss on if they were on fire.

[lankou]

There are some people on this forum I wouldn't piss on if they were on fire.

Likewise unless I could piss petrol.

[lankou]

So indeed, this child is the child of activists (is Daddy a White Helmet himself?) and part of the minority that evacuated from the East Ghouta to Idlib last week.

Have you any thoughts on this "news" item, ( number of sources,)

https://www.timesofisrael.com/roger-...-organization/

[Patman Post]

Likewise unless I could piss petrol.

Looks like you’ll just have to make do with unrefined vitriol...

[scott777]

And, oddly enough, up pops the poster whose "most likely" course of events is always, without fail, that his own country and the west in general are responsible for everything that's wrong with the world. The poster influenced by websites and other conspiracy fruitcakes like Chomsky and thinks Assange is a "hero". Listen son, I've seen more dead bodies than you can shake a stick at, and there have been many times I wished I could bury my head in the sand. But in the real world, there are no good guys and bad guys, just days and nights to get through.

You are the poster who claimed videos of ISIS atrocities weren't real. Yet here you are claiming now that we should look at things and propose a "most likely" course of events. Except, we can claim anything we don't want to influence our theory doesn't exist. Feck off. You are the worst kind of conspiracy theorist.

Thanks Dad.

I entirely agree there are no good and bad guys. I don't understand your point at all. I'm sorry that you're unable to have a rational conversation.

What I do notice is that you aren't prepared to state an opinion on who poisoned Skripal. So is it your opinion to just say 'never mind, let's just forget about it'?

[DeppityDawg]

Thanks Dad.

I entirely agree there are no good and bad guys. I don't understand your point at all. I'm sorry that you're unable to have a rational conversation.

What I do notice is that you aren't prepared to state an opinion on who poisoned Skripal. So is it your opinion to just say 'never mind, let's just forget about it'?

Rational by whose definition? Yours? A man who states that ISIS atrocities are, in his opinion, propaganda?

No, you don't understand, and that is the point. You are sitting in a privileged position, in the Western world, reading stories on the internet and making your own judgements on "most likely" courses of events, influenced by people with degrees in doing absolutely nothing fecking useful and protected and nurtured by the very society you put down at every opportunity.

In the end the average Syrian is trying to stay alive, whether the bullet or chemical that kills him comes from the East or the West is largely immaterial. Do you not think there were people who "fervently" welcomed ISIS fighters when they arrived in order not to end up dead, and then "fervently" welcomed government forces when they arrived in order not to end up dead? That is what happens in conflicts, time and time again, over and over again. People will say and do virtually anything to stay alive.

The world is constantly at war in one place or another. There is a vast geo-political conflict going on constantly, and yes, it is over oil, money, resources and power. What do you think we should do? Take our teddy and go home to watch cartoons while the rest of the world cuts and carves out the future? Everything is at stake. Countries fight over resources, over ideologies, over alliances, over points of strategic value, over influence, over staying rich or becoming poor. What do you expect? A detailed time table of activities to be emailed to you every morning before breakfast so you can tick off what you agree with and what you don't? Why do you think they tell us "its because we is actually nice peoplz that we is bombing Syrian gas factoriez"? Because if they told the truth, that we need to ensure that gas or oil remains both accessable and affordable, or that we cannot afford to let another country control the Straits of Hormuz or influence an unstable neighbour of one of our allies, the Corbyn's of this world would all be marching down Whitehall with banners bemoaning the "warmongering" government.

Sorry, but there are some things trade, kind words or idiots like Corbyn just cannot achieve.