Thread: The crisis in Syria

This article was deleted several hours after publishing more than half of a year ago:

U.S. 'planned to launch chemical weapon attack on Syria and blame it on Assad' | Mail Online

All this Syria issue smells very dirty to me.

Originally Posted by Basil77

This article was deleted several hours after publishing more than half of a year ago:

U.S. 'planned to launch chemical weapon attack on Syria and blame it on Assad' | Mail Online

All this Syria issue smells very dirty to me.

I saw that article as well. I agree, it smells very dirty.

Originally Posted by Basil77

This article was deleted several hours after publishing more than half of a year ago:

U.S. 'planned to launch chemical weapon attack on Syria and blame it on Assad' | Mail Online

All this Syria issue smells very dirty to me.

You are JOKING, is this for real!?!
It's totally outrageous. He's talking about actions that could start a war, as if it was a stroll in the park.

The guy exists, he is on LinkedIn and all, and they've got personnel in the Middle East and connections to Ukrainians. I didn't quite get why the people filming it had to speak Russian, but I get that the general idea was to plant false evidence villifying Assad.

And "David Goulding" for goodness sake. I wonder what religion he might be.

This smells to high heaven. I can hardly believe it's for real. This is the very worst fears I had about Syria, that this sort of stuff was happening.

And what a t-sser to mail something like this over the internet where it obviously got hacked or otherwise picked up by somebody who "shouldn't" have seen it.

Originally Posted by Hanna

You are JOKING, is this for real!?!
It's totally outrageous. He's talking about actions that could start a war, as if it was a stroll in the park.

That's ordinary American practice. They kill their own citizens for the political purposes, organize provocations all over the world etc, so don't you think they care about these nasty muslims somewhere in the hole like Syria? Even if those muslims are not religious fanatics? (There are a lot of Christians in Syria, by the way)

I didn't quite get why the people filming it had to speak Russian

Are you really so naive? It shocked me.
They want to produce kinda "evidence" that Russia supports Assad and helps him to kill people with the help of CW. Because they think it would take Russia out of the game, if they publish these "facts" in the US Media. Of course, these "facts" must be obvious even for the most stupid American lookers.

I hope we are watching the last burping of the stinking monster before it croaks. Amen.

Nobel Peace Prize laureste, Mairead Maguire, tells her account of her visit to Syria.

While Maguire was in Syria she discovered that the war in Syria is not as depicted a civil war but a proxy war with serious breaches of International laws and the Humanitarian International laws. The protection of the foreign fighters by some foreign countries among the most powerful gives them a kind of an unaccountability that pushes them with impunity to all kind of cruel deeds against innocent civilians. Even war conventions are not respected resulting in many war crimes and, even, crimes against humanity.

Originally Posted by Hanna

You are JOKING, is this for real!?!

This doesn't look like a joke for me at all. "Civil" war in Syria is fueled by Quatar and Saudi Arabia, "rebel" forces consist mainly from jihadist Al-Quaeda mercenaries hired by these two countries, if not for them, Assad would ended this long ago imho. And I believe those "nice" and "peace loving" countries can do ANY nasty thing if it suits their goals. Fortunately for them, USA (=NATO="democratic world") consider them allies, so they have some sort of indulgence and "free democratic" media is more likely to believe any bullsh!t they make up instead of obvious facts.

Originally Posted by Hanna

It's totally outrageous. He's talking about actions that could start a war, as if it was a stroll in the park.
The guy exists, he is on LinkedIn and all

Indeed -- someone who wanted to fake a "smoking gun" email between a high-level manager and the founder of this "Britam Defence" company would have an easy time finding out the two guy's names, 'cause they're publicly known and can easily be found on LinkedIn.

And "David Goulding" for goodness sake. I wonder what religion he might be.

Well, don't keep us all in suspense, darling -- why don't you share with us your interesting theories about what his religion might be?

(Personally, I wonder whether he likes having sex with other guys, as 98.07% of British men do...)

This smells to high heaven. I can hardly believe it's for real.

It's good that you can hardly believe it, because it's not for real -- and the only thing you smell is the stink of incompetent forgery. Apparently, someone hacked into the servers of Britam Defence, found a genuine email from Goulding to Doughty discussing "the Iranian issue", and then modified it to create the email discussing . (The most suspicious detail: the "Iran" email and the "Syria" email were both supposedly sent at exactly 23:57:18 Singapore Time, and both were received at exactly 23:57:27 London Time. I would also note the difference in tone between the "Iran" and "Syria" emails. The Iran one uses rather vague language describing "the Iranian issue" and "preparatory details" -- one would naturally expect the executives in a corporate-security firm to be pretty vague in an unencrypted email -- while the Syria message is like the villain in a movie explaining his evil-genius plan in complete detail, unaware that the hero has a tape-recorder in his jacket...)

And, incidentally, British courts agreed back in June that the emails were fake -- resulting in a £110,000 libel suit against the Daily Mail.

Though I suppose it's theoretically possible that the British courts were paid by the CIA to declare that the email (which was actually genuine) was a fake, as part of a complicated scheme to advance the interests of the US military-industrial complex, the Freemasons, and the Rothschilds, while creating a phony pretext for the future invasion of Iran, AND making innocent Russia look bad at the same time! However, I doubt it.

Originally Posted by Throbert McGee

Indeed -- someone who wanted to fake an email between a high-level manager and the founder of this "Britam Defence" company would have an easy time finding out the two guy's names, 'cause they're publicly known and can easily be found on LinkedIn.



Well, don't keep us all in suspense, darling -- why don't you share with us your interesting theories about what his religion might be?

(Personally, I wonder whether he likes having sex with other guys, as 98.07% of British men do...)


It's good that you can hardly believe it, because it's not for real -- and the only thing you smell is the stink of incompetent forgery. Apparently, someone hacked into the servers of Britam Defence, found a genuine email from Goulding to Doughty discussing "the Iranian issue", and then modified it to create the email discussing . (The most suspicious detail: the "Iran" email and the "Syria" email were both supposedly sent at exactly 23:57:18 Singapore Time, and both were received at exactly 23:57:27 London Time.)

And, incidentally, British courts agreed back in June that the emails were fake -- resulting in a £110,000 libel suit against the Daily Mail.

Though I suppose it's theoretically possible that the British courts were paid by the CIA to declare that the email (which was actually genuine) was a fake, as part of a complicated scheme to advance the interests of the US military-industrial complex, the Freemasons, and the Rothschilds, while creating a phony pretext for the future invasion of Iran, AND making innocent Russia look bad at the same time! However, I doubt it.

From your gleeful response I'm assuming that you can't wait to "liberate" the poor Syrians and bring them some "democracy", huh?


.....and fake or not (haven't got the time to dig around online) Britain DOES do this type of stuff, and always has, sadly. It wouldn't be much out of character, just not something you normally see proof of. But after GCHQ, I am prepared to believe almost anything. The taste of money and power is so sweet that they spy on their own citizens and pass on the findings to a third country.

The UK has it's good sides as a country, but extremely dirty playing is unfortunately part of the way this country stays at the top of the pack.

If you think you're insulting me by insulting British men, you are wasting your time. I'm neither a man, nor British and I have no particular love for it.

I agree the timings would be suspicious. But hacking an account to pull the emails would be just how somebody would come across correspondence of that nature. The UK has some very sinister "security consultancy" firms and it certainly isn't inconceivable that someone would pull rank on a court or a judge if national security was at stake. We just don't know.
It's not like the legal system would just thank the hacker for revealing a scandal. Just look at how Assange is treated in this country. It's got s-d all to do with the "crime" he's suspected for.

Originally Posted by Hanna

From your spiteful response I'm assuming that you can't wait to "liberate" the poor Syrians and bring them some "democracy", huh?

No -- I supported the Iraq War at the time because I regarded it as a "rational gamble" in the post-9/11 environment to project American military power into the Muslim Arab world (to remind them that we COULD, and to show that we weren't deaf when Middle Easterners complained about our historic willingness to tolerate and prop up dictatorial regimes in the name of stability, and for other reasons).

I now admit that we disastrously underestimated the degree to which Saddam's oppression of Iraq had been a stabilizing force that PREVENTED a lot of deaths as a result of ethnic/religious conflict among Iraqis, and that we should not repeat this mistake by attacking Syria.

Originally Posted by Hanna

If you think you're insulting me by insulting British men, you are wasting your time.

(1) Even if I really believed -- which I don't! -- that 98.07% of British men enjoy having sex with other men, I would hope it should be rather obvious by now that I don't personally consider it insulting to suggest that a person is homosexual -- for the same reason that you wouldn't consider it insulting if I said that 98.07% of British men are secretly Swedish.

(2) In any case, it was a joke -- the point being that to make guesses about a man's religion because his name is "David Goulding" is as ridiculous as making guesses about a man's sexual orientation because he's British.


PS Of course, there ARE names -- or forms of names -- that are particularly associated with one religion or another -- a Christian boy is unlikely to be named "Shlomo", a Jewish boy is unlikely to be named "Christopher", and neither of these boys is likely to be named "Muhammad"! However, neither "David" nor "Goulding" happens to be one of those names that are strongly linked to a particular faith, at least in English.

Originally Posted by Throbert McGee

(1) Even if I really believed -- which I don't! -- that 98.07% of British men enjoy having sex with other men, I would hope it should be rather obvious by now that I don't personally consider it insulting to suggest that a person is homosexual -- for the same reason that you wouldn't consider it insulting if I said that 98.07% of British men are secretly Swedish.

(2) In any case, it was a joke -- the point being that to make guesses about a man's religion because his name is "David Goulding" is as ridiculous as making guesses about a man's sexual orientation because he's British.


PS Of course, there ARE names -- or forms of names -- that are particularly associated with one religion or another -- a Christian boy is unlikely to be named "Shlomo", a Jewish boy is unlikely to be named "Christopher", and neither of these boys is likely to be named "Muhammad"! However, neither "David" nor "Goulding" happens to be one of those names that are strongly linked to a particular faith, at least in English.

My last name is Armstrong. Unfortunately, it doesn't mean I get to be an astronaut or an Olympic skier either )))))

That said, I can't count the times people have asked me if I'm related......

Originally Posted by Deborski

My last name is Armstrong. Unfortunately, it doesn't mean I get to be an astronaut or an Olympic skier either )))))

That said, I can't count the times people have asked me if I'm related......

A great surname! But why did you not mention the jazz singer? He is definitely more famous than the Olympic skier. At least in Russia

I knew two Armstrongs until now: the astronaut and the musician. Now I know four