I'm just saying there are credible stories on both sides really.

I'm just tired of the WMDs, the human shields, the gas attacks, the ethic cleansing, the irrefutable evidence always leading to unnecessary wars, millions of deaths, total instability and collapse of whole nations, plunged into poverty forever. "But this time it's true, look we have irrefutable evidence". But it's never true and so it goes on and on, one bullshit invasion after another.

GooberTheHat wrote:

Kow wrote:

And the SOHR is just a one man show in England with a network of contacts in Syria.

Yep, I'm not sure what your point is though?

I just mean saying it's based in the UK is true but also a bit misleading, most of it is in Syria.

GooberTheHat wrote:

From the world health organisation

According to reports from Health Cluster partners, during the shelling of Douma on Saturday, an estimated 500 patients presented to health facilities exhibiting signs and symptoms consistent with exposure to toxic chemicals. In particular, there were signs of severe irritation of mucous membranes, respiratory failure and disruption to central nervous systems of those exposed.

I'm not saying he was lying, but I do suspect he was lied to.

Who is the health cluster partner or partners who gave the WHO these reports? Do you know?

legaldinho wrote:

GooberTheHat wrote:

From the world health organisation

According to reports from Health Cluster partners, during the shelling of Douma on Saturday, an estimated 500 patients presented to health facilities exhibiting signs and symptoms consistent with exposure to toxic chemicals. In particular, there were signs of severe irritation of mucous membranes, respiratory failure and disruption to central nervous systems of those exposed.

I'm not saying he was lying, but I do suspect he was lied to.

Who is the health cluster partner or partners who gave the WHO these reports? Do you know?

No. Who did Fisk talk to? Do you know who they were? Do you know if they actually lived in the city? Do you know that they weren't pro Assad regime? Do you know that they weren't coerced into towing the regime line?

No, but you choose to believe their account is credible. Just as I choose to believe the WHO has reason to accept the account it received from its partners is credible.

Why have the Syrians and Russians allowed journalists into Douma, but not the OPCW?

OK, but 24 or 48 hours after journalists?

"conflicting reports"

GooberTheHat wrote:

legaldinho wrote:

GooberTheHat wrote:

From the world health organisation

According to reports from Health Cluster partners, during the shelling of Douma on Saturday, an estimated 500 patients presented to health facilities exhibiting signs and symptoms consistent with exposure to toxic chemicals. In particular, there were signs of severe irritation of mucous membranes, respiratory failure and disruption to central nervous systems of those exposed.

I'm not saying he was lying, but I do suspect he was lied to.

Who is the health cluster partner or partners who gave the WHO these reports? Do you know?

No. Who did Fisk talk to? Do you know who they were? Do you know if they actually lived in the city? Do you know that they weren't pro Assad regime? Do you know that they weren't coerced into towing the regime line?

No, but you choose to believe their account is credible. Just as I choose to believe the WHO has reason to accept the account it received from its partners is credible.

Fisk named the guy he talked to, and expressed doubt. You have taken words from a press release. It's basically reporting what was said to them I just wanted to point out that we don't know who the who's cluster partners are. They have many. They list international and domestic NGOs. What do you wanna bet that cluster which reported those numbers has an acronym that goes SCD?

Lol.

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/04/stray-thoughts-i-f-stone-vietnam-sam-harris-chinese-philosophy

"I am particularly interested in this right now since I’ve just written about the Vietnam War for our new issue, and I’m currently reading a 700-page biography of Ho Chi Minh. (Okay, I’m skipping some bits.) Ho is a fascinating figure, a lot more complicated than people often think, if they think about him at all. No matter what one thinks of Leninism (personally I’m against it), he’s a difficult person to completely dislike because of the sincerity with which he was devoted to freeing his people from colonial rule. There is a good argument that we took the wrong side in Vietnam from the beginning. Compare two statements. Here’s Ho Chi Minh in the Vietnamese Declaration of Independence from 1945: “. This immortal statement was made in the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America in 1776. In a broader sense, this means: All the peoples on the earth are equal from birth, all the peoples have a right to live, to be happy and free.” And here’s General Ky, the South Vietnamese autocrat the U.S. was supporting in 1967: “People ask me who my heroes are. have only one—Hitler… We need four or five Hitlers in Vietnam.” This is where we ended up after rejecting Vietnam’s independence and supporting France in its recolonization of the country."

Just another shout out to CA. And another little titbit highlighting where my (and others) cynicism re the US comes from.

Preaching to the choir, I know.

https://youtu.be/cQ54GDm1eL0

GooberTheHat wrote:

I'm also cynical of the motivations of the US, UK and France. I just don't buy the theory that the use of chemical weapons is orchestrated by the UK, in an attempt to implicate Assad in order to legitimise regime change. Will they attempt to use this incident as a way of justifying regime change? Maybe, but I think that will just be the usual political tactic of never letting a good crisis go to waste rather than some longterm machiavellian scheme involving multiple governments, intelligence agencies, international organisations, NGOs and disparate rebel and jihadi factions.

Not going to claim to be an expert here since most of yours and gonzo's discussion on this has gone way over my head, but, ...

Perhaps the reasons for Assad using chemical weapons are minimal (too risky) and the idea of the UK/US/France being responsible are too absurd. Russia might be too obvious and whilst I think they're likely, they seem effective at sowing doubt at the same time as being blamed for everything by parties with blood on their own hands.

I personally wouldnt be surprised if its some PMC gone rogue. Perhaps one that has money to gain from a prolonged conflict.

May has just claimed that Labour took the decision to destroy the landing cards in 2009.

An earlier statement from the Home Office disputes this: The Home Office acknowledged that the UK Border Agency decided in 2010 to “securely dispose of some documents known as registration slips.

"make decision to" doesnt equate to actually doing. So it's maybe not strictly speaking a lie?

It's just so completely at odds with everything that I can barely get my head around it.

Other than all of the evidence showing May was involved, like the amount of foreign students overstaying their visas being 100000 a year when it was actually 4600. When shown this by the ONS, May pressed ahead with regulations designed to tackle 100000 people a year anyway.

I believe that I read also that she was a sole vetoing vote on some other shitty policy decision on immigration during her tenure.

People asking the current Home Secretary to stand down tho, fucking lul.