No attack, no victims, no chem weapons: Douma witnesses speak at OPCW briefing at The Hague

And I mean, if there was no Novichok attack, what reason will be given for the suited-up military to stay in Salisbury for the next 8 months? And what about the 'fact' the Skiprals were supposedly at death's door? I just can't see where this is going from here on in.

 

Yes, but that would mean May willfully and with intent misled the House? AND it all backfires on the so-called Russian hacking into the presidential election too?? WTF??

 

I believe in every word Russians are saying because Russian are very famous by always telling the truth. I also believe that none of the bellow journalists were killed by the order of Mr. Putin:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_in_Russia


zb

 

I don't, of course; I think Macron is an opportunist with no real ideals of his own, except embrace neo-liberalism the best he can. I also believe that he is the rest of the Occident's emissary to Trump, as he seems able to "control" him somehow. France and UK's role in the pathetic last missile show was more about restraining Trump than lending him strength - that what I feel, but I have been wrong before.

As for these videos, you are right: I don't trust in them in this day and age, bar some un-avoidable exceptions. I didn't even had a glance at the video in the OP, to be honest. I don't trust official sources neither, furthermore in times of conflict. I'm in the thread for the responses. You defended yourself well, BTW.

I am still quite convinced that Assad didn't do it because it would be highly irrational in every way given the circumstances. In all the threads I have been participating on the subject, not once did I read a valid reason why would Assad do such a dumb thing. Yeah, even the "because he's a sadistical crazy dude" one.

 

For a fighting force, chem attacks represent less of a danger than conventional one. It's relatively easy and cheap to protect oneself from chems, furthermore if the other side is known to use them. Chems are "efficient" only vs civilians. It makes no sense for Assad to exclusively attack (his) civilians that are hostages of a totalitarian, Sharia-based Islamist regime.

 

The White Helmet-backing SOHR would have reported it.

 

"Chemical weapons"...

... Any punk can make chlorine gas using javel water, acid, a bathtub and a few plastic containers. No need for "facilities".

 

A heck of a lot of ethnic Russians live in Georgia and Ukraine. You can't just oppress them and demand other Russians to look the other way.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-27/russia-presents-alleged-syrian-witnesses-to-opcw/9702128

amazing Australian neutral source.

 

During terrorist_Bush's invasion of Iraq, I also asked those who claim he moved those nukes to present such photos. None ever came because it never happened.

 

The situation in Syria is not as clear cut as the conventional war between two armies. The rebels and the terrorists are embedded in the civilian society, they wear civilian clothes, they live in the same residential areas as civilians, they don't have military bases with all the facilities a regular army enjoys.

There's no protection from chemical attack without proper warning beforehand. People can't walk around 24 hours a day with a mask on, you know (assuming they had masks). I doubt very much they were given any warning at all.

How could they know? Do they have the means to reach the bombed sites and test the air for unusual gases?

Sure.

However, "any punk" doesn't have the means to drop the chemical weapon on the desired target. How would you bomb a neighborhood in Toronto, attach the bomb to a crow and shoot the bird above the target?

Movement of rebels carrying chemical weapons in residential areas would have been immediately noticed by the locals. Nobody claimed rebels did it, though, not even the "witnesses" brought to Hague.

 

What would you say if you saw Skripal suffer from an alleged Novichok attack,...
and a couple of months later you saw the same Skripal saying he faked it.

Would you still totally believe Skripal suffered from a Novichok attack, or do you got your doubts?

 

The witnesses in The Hague, are the people the exact same people everybody saw on the tv/youtube suffering from that alleged chemical attack.
Those people do not say they don't know if Assad did it or the rebels, they say that they acted for the camera and it's all fake.

Ergo..... The witnesses the west believed... say they faked it.
So besides that there is no evidence, there now are no reliable witnesses as well.

Do pay attention.

 

Well, that's already more protection than you can buy from a conventional attack. With all the chem accusations pointed at Assad I woul be surprised rebels didn't have any chem gear (unless they know there are no such thing as Assad using chems, of course).

My point here is that a conventional attack would have been probably a lot more effective, furthermore against an organized fighting force. I just don't see the point.

"SOHR" is one guy in an English suburb bungalow with a cell phone and contacts. He would have "known" it the same way he "knew" in his previous reports; Rumors and hearsay from the White Helmet side. Given that such info would favour the White Helmet side, its absence is rather telling.

You place them chem containers in a place you know is going to be hit.

These "chemical weapons" comes in the form of common mundane-looking plastic containers. Besides, who wants to have his head chopped off and familly raped for ratting on the Islamists? Wartime "witnesses" and "reports" are to be taken with a rather large grain of salt.

 

You meant chems, not nukes?

Sure, but Saddam gassed the Kurds, and that's an indisputable fact.

 

You missed my point.

Nobody tried to pin the chemical attack on the rebels. Why? I say it's because it would be easy to prove they didn't have the means to do it. Otherwise, I harbor no illusions regarding the various groups and factions tearing Syria apart. Except for the Kurds, I trust nobody there.

 

I don't know much about the rebels in Douma and their gear.

A conventional attack is never effective in urban areas, against an enemy hiding among civilians. One never knows if the innocent looking teenager playing with a bunch of kids is really their older brother watching over them, or an enemy ready to strike. A conventional attack on Douma would have spelled disaster for Assad's soldiers, the number of casualties on both sides would have been very high. It makes sense for Assad to have chosen another - less risky for his soldiers - method of attack.

 

The sick bastards (and tricky) are those in the US government and their MSM lapdogs who promote such falsehoods to advance the war cause.

War mongers are the people you "buy", apparently. You reject the tellers of truth, you refuse to believe what is so, which gives you no credibility.

 

Again: the bombed sites must be closed to anyone but officials of the regime and allies. SOHR knows that, White Helmets know that. Any attempt to claim whatever about those sites would've totally discredited the claimant. I don't know if these people are always - or even sometimes - telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, but they certainly aren't that stupid.

How do you know what place, and when, is going to be hit?

How do you know civilians in the area won't move or open the containers before the area is hit?

Agree about wartime witnesses, but that includes Assad and Putin's witnesses as well.

 

To convince me that Assad and Putin ordered chems dropped on what was essentially the eve of the US leaving Syria, you'd have to first convince me that Assad and Putin want America and its allies to remain in Syria to help the rebels overthrow the Assad government and take over Syria. What confuses me is why Trump, Congress, our intelligence agencies, and the media, are all in concert in this composition of absurdities.

 

Why should we believe the Syrians--or anyone else? It's easy enough to find people, victims or not, who will say anything for enough money.

 

https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/iraqchron

 

I just don't think the people involved in 1962 or 2017 were crazies who would start a nuclear war.

 

Sounds a lot like Hitler demanding the Sudetenland in 1938.

 

Syrians were believed when they claimed they were attacked with chlorine by the west.
Exact same Syrian individuals are not believed by the west when they say they faked it.
So there...

 

And the invasion of Hawaii by the US.