Syria conflict: 'Chemical attacks kill hundreds'

[DetCord]

There ya go.

http://routeclearance.blogspot.com/2...05351517491951

[DetCord]

Originally Posted by Feuer Frei!

O'really?

Source?

WHICH attack are you referring to? The school yard one?
If so, then yes, it wasn't. It seems.

Pictures aren't evidence.

And considering the Weapons Inspectors haven't even delivered their preliminary report to the council yet, unless of course you are privy to the findings already.

And fueling the Obama war machine?

More like fueling Skybird.

First hand experience as a combat veteran, having seen said munition utilized, does that count?

Twat.

[Mittelwaechter]

Originally Posted by DetCord

There ya go.

http://routeclearance.blogspot.com/2...05351517491951

We'll see, if the international media will cover this.
It may be a counter misinformation to the US "proof of guilt" misinformation.

Truth is hard to find in all this propaganda, but I have no reason to doubt this information more than Kerry's statements.
_____________

As DelPonte stated in may 2013 the rebel aggressors used chemical weapons, the famous US's red line wasn't crossed. Obviously chemical weapons have to be used only by the right guys, to avoid any consequences.
As the US military itself uses chemical and thermobare weapons committing war crimes to attack civilians, the US is no acceptable moral entity to cop the rest of the world.

[Feuer Frei!]

Originally Posted by DetCord

First hand experience as a combat veteran, having seen said munition utilized, does that count?

Does it count?
When you're posting a post stating that you are undeniably certain and without a doubt that something wasn't something that hasn't even been proven to be so by a body and providing no link to anything when making that opinion then no, it doesn't count.
You've had first-hand experience in combat. Fair enough, i respect that.
But the post i made previously in response to your post claiming undeniably something that hasn't been proven so is where i was coming from.
Take that for what its worth.

Twat.

Nice attitude, Pal.
Can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.
======================================

UN Team is out, the Clock starts ticking:

UN inspectors investigating the alleged use of chemical weapons in Syria have left Damascus.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23908808

31 August 2013 Last updated at 06:03

We'll see, if the international media will cover this.

will the international media cover an unverified claim that is published in the international media????????

Does it count?

I think it does, combat experience gives a person the ability to make unquestionably certain analytical judgements based on an unverified photo taken at an unverified location at an unverified time.
Its a sort of special magic.

[Feuer Frei!]

The video linked in the Blogger's piece does nothing for his/her credibility.
Nor anyone who links to it.

Not least of all since the alleged chemical attack a week ago occurred during the night.
Eye witness accounts confirm this to be so.

Gotta love 3rd part bloggers who also give video game reviews

[Packlife]

So the weapons inspectors pulled out early. Well it's only a matter of time now, wouldn't be surprised if the strikes happen in a few hours. And big surprise not long after the inspectors left shelling could be heard, they sure didn't wait to long to start that up again.

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by Feuer Frei!

Does it count?
When you're posting a post stating that you are undeniably certain and without a doubt that something wasn't something that hasn't even been proven to be so by a body and providing no link to anything when making that opinion then no, it doesn't count.

Hate to tell you, but your sound like one of those "internet experts".

You've had first-hand experience in combat. Fair enough, i respect that.

No, I don't think you do.

But the post i made previously in response to your post claiming undeniably something that hasn't been proven so is where i was coming from.
Take that for what its worth.

You do realize that a word like "but" is a retraction of your previous statement right? So, no you really don't respect first hand experience. I will grant that there are a lot of "internet experts" and "Keyboard commando's" that pretend to be something their not. However, with Detcord im inclined to believe he's not some poser.

Nice attitude, Pal.
Can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.
======================================

Dude, If i had served in recent years and been there, done that, bought the T shirt, i'd have said the same thing. Because when you pair that personal experience to what your saying on a message board and having most likely never seen anything at all first hand, well.... yeah.

Nothing personal Feuer Frei, I'm just saying when you go barking up someones tree who may have actual experience, you may want to think about it first. Because if your wrong, you make yourself look really bad.

[Jimbuna]

I'm hoping no military action is started until the UN weapons inspectors have submitted their report but as far as I am aware said report will only confirm what weapons were used and not the source of origin/side using them.

I'm hoping no military action is started until the UN weapons inspectors have submitted their report but as far as I am aware said report will only confirm what weapons were used and not the source of origin/side using them.

Which means the politicians will lack the smoking gun which would justify the red line they set themselves.
I wonder if it wasn't for the absolute balls up they made with their claims of "evidence" over Iraq if they would get a smoother ride this time with their claims?
Not that any of them are dealing with the crucial "then what?" aspect of any military intervention.

[Vince82]

First I didn't really believe attacking was a good idea, but now I feel like there should be done something. It's about the people of Syria. I hope many countries will join the US in their efforts.

[Feuer Frei!]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

Hate to tell you, but your sound like one of those "internet experts".

Wouldn't know. Not trying to.
Asking for links and credible sources. Nothing internet expert about it.

No, I don't think you do.

Yes i think, in fact i know i do.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with what i called him out on. Until he mentioned he had combat experience.
Which in the light of his uneducated claim that he made re chemical attack(s) has nothing to do with it.
So for someone to bring that ole i served and have combat experience into the fray when it didn't need to be doesn't wash with me.
He made a claim, which was and still isn't backed up by cold hard facts.
No amount of: "oh but i served and saw it many times with my own eyes" will give someone who posts a claim based on nothing other than some blogger who links a crap video and does game reviews the ability to make such a claim.
Unless of course, like i suggested, the poster is on the ground, and was actively present in the samples taken, the analyising of said samples, the construction and finalising of reports of said samples, and the delivery of reports to the un council.
If thats not the case then i'm afraid he, like me and you and others of this community are in the same boat and cannot make claims like the one that was made.

You do realize that a word like "but" is a retraction of your previous statement right? So, no you really don't respect first hand experience. I will grant that there are a lot of "internet experts" and "Keyboard commando's" that pretend to be something their not. However, with Detcord im inclined to believe he's not some poser.

See my above post.
Once again, i was quiete happy to ask for links and some sort of evidence which is actually credible, not some garbage posted by some blogger.
Why the serving in combat came up, don't hold me to account, ask him.
You're assuming and putting words in my mouth.
I'm quiete happy and possibly sometimes a bit harsh in debating and asking for links to a claim made, but for someone to throw the "i served" line and to then expect automatic credibility to their posts in future, from that moment on is ludicrous.
I hope you're not implying that that is the case, since that would disappoint me.
I asked for links, credible sources to his claim, and the poster came up with a dodgy link and that he served.
Now, you say i don't respect someone because they served?
You're basing that on what?
Assumptions?
Knowledge?
Or just the thought process that "how dare someone questions someone who served" no matter what they post?
Seems like it.

Dude, If i had served in recent years and been there, done that, bought the T shirt, i'd have said the same thing. Because when you pair that personal experience to what your saying on a message board and having most likely never seen anything at all first hand, well.... yeah

Yea yea i get it, if you served it gives you the right to claim something, granted, with more knowledge than say i, however once again, to make a claim like the one he did is nothing without cold hard facts.
The difference between you and me it seems is that you seem to think that how dare i question him and that i should put up and shut up and let him or anyone who has served post claims without being able to ask for links or even question what they say.
Stuff that.

Nothing personal Feuer Frei, I'm just saying when you go barking up someones tree who may have actual experience, you may want to think about it first. Because if your wrong, you make yourself look really bad.

Nothing personal either, although if it isn't then your claims are pretty harsh.
As for me being wrong?
Not likely since i don't spout out claims in a thread, and bleat undeniably that that is what happened, without so much as an iota of proof, from say a body or organisation that is actually involved in the current conflict, not 10 years ago or however long poster served, or you for that matter, then i think it's quiete appropriate to ask for further clarification on why that poster made such a claim.
Without getting into the whole debate of oh oh i served, which has absolutely nothing to do with the request to present facts to a claim made in relation to this particular issue.

You will of course say that veterans are more quaslified to comment on matters such as these, i have no doubt.
But, it still doesn't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt whether the claim made is true or not.

I rest my case for now.

I don't want to get into a slanging match with you.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Which means the politicians will lack the smoking gun which would justify the red line they set themselves.
I wonder if it wasn't for the absolute balls up they made with their claims of "evidence" over Iraq if they would get a smoother ride this time with their claims?
Not that any of them are dealing with the crucial "then what?" aspect of any military intervention.

I think if it hadn't have been for Iraq and the fiasco that was the WMD 'evidence' there, we would probably be bombing by now. Certainly parliament wouldn't have been so twitchy about voting for action.

[Feuer Frei!]

So Putin says US Claim is nonsense

Get that evidence out.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has dismissed US claims that Syria's regime used chemical weapons, describing them as "utter nonsense"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23911833

[Skybird]

Showing a written claim that one has evidence, and showing the evidence, are two different things.

They seem to have big problem to see that difference. Instead they want their claim taken as the evidence itself.

Unacceptable.

No circus director will make the audience laughing by just claiming that the circus has a clown. The clown has to enter the arena himself and make his jokes, there is no way around that.

Evidence, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Obama. Evidence. Either you show it, or you don't.