• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Official British Anti Russian propaganda thread

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #71
    This is going to upset some people:

    https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-...2-gas-pipeline
    "Is someone you don't like allowed to say something you don't like? If that is the case then we have free speech."- Elon Musk

    Comment


      #72
      Originally posted by Jog On View Post
      Have you read it? I had to download the word doc version which says this:



      Very carefully worded throughout with language like "suggests, alleged". Nothing concrete at all and some of the incidents point to ISIS having and using chemical weapons. This document is proof that there is no proof!

      This is the kind of thing that makes me want to 'question more'.

      Anyway - this is a pointless conversation and we're not going to agree.
      You have selectively quoted an evaluation of some later events, but it is good that you accept the bona fides of the document, when you begin, 'The document is proof that...'

      So here are the sections that I pointed out, which refer to other events:

      Talmenes, Idlib governorate, 21 April 2014

      54. The Leadership Panel examined the existing information regarding the two
      impact locations in Talmenes on 21 April 2014. There is sufficient information for
      the Panel to conclude that the incident at impact location No. 2 was caused by a
      Syrian Arab Armed Forces helicopter dropping a device causing damage to the
      structure of a concrete block building and was followed by the release of a toxic
      substance that affected the population.

      55. This conclusion was based on the following:
      • Ahrar al-Sham and the Nusrah Front had a heavy presence around Talmenes.
      Both were said to have been in control of the town. Talmenes was subject to
      regular artillery and air force attacks around and on 21 April 2014. On that day
      there was an ongoing battle between government forces and armed opposition
      groups, as well as the Nusrah Front, around the two military bases at Wadi
      Deif and Hamidiyah, both of which are in close proximity to Talmenes.
      • Witnesses stated that the release of toxic chemicals followed the explosion of a
      barrel bomb dropped from an aircraft.
      • Both the Government and the armed opposition groups do not deny that
      chlorine was used in Talmenes on 21 April 2014.
      • The Government stated that the impact (location No. 2) was caused by a landbased
      projectile launched by an armed opposition group. The structural
      damage was not found to be consistent with this.
      • Only one of the two alleged impact sites (location No. 2) has been found
      plausible by the Mechanism.
      • When the incident occurred, the Government had lost control of six airbases,
      including Taftanaz airbase (Idlib governorate). The Government informed the
      Mechanism that 15 helicopters had been left behind at Taftanaz airbase, 9 of
      which had been deemed operational.
      • The Leadership Panel reviewed all the information gathered and found no
      evidence that armed opposition groups in Talmenes had been operating a
      helicopter at the time and location of the incident.
      • While the exact number of patients could not be definitively established, it is
      obvious that large numbers of people were affected by toxic chemicals.
      Sarmin, Idlib governorate, 16 March 2015
      56. The Leadership Panel examined the existing information regarding the two
      impact locations in Sarmin on 16 March 2015. There is sufficient information for
      the Panel to conclude that the incident at impact location No. 2 was caused by a
      Syrian Arab Armed Forces helicopter dropping a device that hit the house and was
      followed by the release of a toxic substance, matching the characteristics of
      chlorine, that was fatal to all six occupants. The remnants of the device are
      consistent with the construction of a barrel bomb.

      57. This conclusion was based on the following:
       Witnesses confirmed that at least one helicopter flew over Sarmin at the time
      of the incident.
       Expert and forensic analyses support witness statements that a device or
      “barrel bomb” dropped from a helicopter impacted through the ventilation
      shaft of a house (impact location No. 2) inhabited at the time by a family of
      six. The damage was consistent with the kinetic effect of a device or barrel
      bomb falling from high altitude rather than the explosion or detonation of any
      high explosive.
       Multiple videos of location No. 2 show HCFC gas canisters inside the house,
      with a purple substance on the floor.
       The Government indicated that there had been no Syrian Arab Armed Forces
      flights on 16 March 2015, but did not provide any supporting information.
      However, the Mechanism obtained information from other sources that
      corroborates witness statements of Syrian Arab Armed Forces helicopter flights
      on the date and at the time of the incident.
       When the incident occurred, the Government had lost control of six airbases,
      including Taftanaz airbase (Idlib governorate). The Government informed the
      Mechanism that 15 helicopters had been left behind at Taftanaz airbase, 9 of
      which had been deemed operational.
       The Leadership Panel reviewed all the information gathered and found no
      evidence that armed opposition groups in Sarmin had been operating a
      helicopter at the time and location of the incident.
      I would be interested to hear your propagandist squirming.

      Comment


        #73
        Originally posted by northernladyuk View Post
        You have selectively quoted an evaluation of some later events, but it is good that you accept the bona fides of the document, when you begin, 'The document is proof that...'

        So here are the sections that I pointed out, which refer to other events:







        I would be interested to hear your propagandist squirming.
        White helmets?
        "Is someone you don't like allowed to say something you don't like? If that is the case then we have free speech."- Elon Musk

        Comment


          #74
          Originally posted by Jog On View Post
          White helmets?
          Is that the squirm?

          Comment


            #75
            Originally posted by Jog On View Post
            White helmets?
            The white helmets have now been sent in training courses to improve their ability to fake a chemical strike



            Yes yes of course, knowing the world is watching, let's attack a target of zero military advantage with chemicals - Jesus's let's write £350 million on a bus for the gullible feckers also

            Comment


              #76
              Originally posted by tarbera View Post
              The white helmets have now been sent in training courses to improve their ability to fake a chemical strike



              Yes yes of course, knowing the world is watching, let's attack a target of zero military advantage with chemicals - Jesus's let's write £350 million on a bus for the gullible feckers also
              That's the spirit Comrade! Down with the Yankee United Nations fake news report!

              Comment


                #77
                Originally posted by northernladyuk View Post
                That's the spirit Comrade! Down with the Yankee United Nations fake news report!
                Indeed

                You can get the formula on amazon


                https://www.liveleak.com/view?t=acyCA_1522261746

                Comment


                  #78
                  Originally posted by tarbera View Post
                  The white helmets have now been sent in training courses to improve their ability to fake a chemical strike



                  Yes yes of course, knowing the world is watching, let's attack a target of zero military advantage with chemicals - Jesus's let's write £350 million on a bus for the gullible feckers also
                  Originally posted by tarbera View Post
                  Indeed

                  You can get the formula on amazon


                  https://www.liveleak.com/view?t=acyCA_1522261746
                  Can you show me proof (not Russian / fake news) that white helmets have now been sent on training courses to improve their ability to fake a chemical strike?

                  Comment


                    #79
                    Originally posted by northernladyuk View Post
                    Can you show me proof (not Russian / fake news) that white helmets have now been sent on training courses to improve their ability to fake a chemical strike?
                    It's made up fake by Russia that white helmets are faking childs death, because as well all know it Russian airstrikes are super precise and they never kill babies, ever.

                    Comment


                      #80
                      Originally posted by AtW View Post
                      It's made up fake by Russia that white helmets are faking childs death, because as well all know it Russian airstrikes are super precise and they never kill babies, ever.
                      I am still waiting for a proper response to the UN report from the Chemical Ali Brigade.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X