Thread: The crisis in Syria

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

Originally Posted by Боб Уайтман

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

I doubt that anybody would ask Deborah about her relation to a black guy

Originally Posted by Боб Уайтман

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

Well, it would be a great honor if anyone thought I was related to Louis Armstrong, but since I am white, people rarely make that connection )))