Syrian war thread - Page 163 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the nations of the Middle East.

Moderator: PoFo Middle-East Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum moderated in English, so please post in English only. Thank you.
#14915988
That's quite clearly not the same as your claim that the article attributed blame to Syria's government, though. :eh: The bit you quoted says that the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (which, incidentally, is based in Coventry and is funded by the British Foreign Office) had blamed Syria's government "at the time". The article clearly and unequivocally says that the investigators did not attribute blame to either side.
User avatar
By Zamuel
#14916024
Heisenberg wrote:That's quite clearly not the same as your claim

I said Syria was being blamed. The article says Syria is being blamed … Please clarify the alleged LIE.
Skinster is the only liar involved in this.

Zam
#14916181
Zamuel wrote:I said Syria was being blamed. The article says Syria is being blamed … Please clarify the alleged LIE.

Your post clearly implied that the article said investigators had blamed Syria for the attack. The far more pertinent information in the new article is that the investigators did not attribute blame, rather than a month-old claim from a biased organisation based several thousand miles away from the alleged event.

Given that you once got very high and mighty with me over the wording of a post, you should be much more careful with your words in future. ;)
User avatar
By Zamuel
#14916187
Heisenberg wrote:Your post clearly implied that the article said investigators had blamed Syria for the attack.

My sole comment on that article was one line … "The pendulum swings, Gas attacks did occur on Feb 4 and are being attributed to "Syrian Attacks." Please define the "Implication" in this sentence you allege equate to a lie.

The far more pertinent information in the new article

That's your opinion. I posted the URL so you could read it for yourself and form that opinion. My opinion was that the persistence of "citable" allegations against Syria amidst the prevalent rabble-babble about false flag attacks deserved attention. Hence I made a very brief comment about it.

You're welcome to YOUR opinion. But I'm neither psychically attuned, nor obligated to it. I'm not your (or skinster's) sock puppet, and I do not tell lies.

Given that you once got very high and mighty with me over the wording of a post,

Yes I pointed out an inexcusable mistake … I don't think I called you a liar. You're stepping on you own tail again here, and I think you know it. Skinster is female and her comments are prone to hysteria, what's your excuse? Sour Grapes?

Zam
#14916245
Zamuel wrote:My sole comment on that article was one line … "The pendulum swings, Gas attacks did occur on Feb 4 and are being attributed to "Syrian Attacks." Please define the "Implication" in this sentence you allege equate to a lie.

The bolding in your post combined with the use of the present tense ("are being attributed") clearly imply that the OPCW is blaming the Syrian government. You know this perfectly well, and so does everyone else.

Zamuel wrote:Yes I pointed out an inexcusable mistake … I don't think I called you a liar.

You did call me a liar, so you can cut out the pretense that you think it's a massive slight against your honour. You clearly have an affinity for performative outrage.
User avatar
By Zamuel
#14916257
Heisenberg wrote:The bolding in your post combined with the use of the present tense - clearly imply

Clearly imply ? Isn't that a bit oxymoronic … ? Or is that just to compliment your "uncertain" handle and threatening Avatar.

You can't explain your "Implication" because it doesn't exist. (except in your imaginative opinion.)

Go and help Red Army grow dental floss in Montana.

Zam
#14916269
No, "clearly imply" is not an oxymoron. An implication is a conclusion that is drawn from something that is not explicitly stated. It is perfectly possible - and indeed, is beneficial! - for something to be clearly implied. Otherwise someone might infer something other than the intended implication.

If you're going to rest all your hopes on word games, it helps to have a solid grounding in the English language. :)
User avatar
By Zamuel
#14916275
Heisenberg wrote:An implication is a conclusion that is drawn from something that is not explicitly stated.

Close enough?

I wrote:The pendulum swings, Gas attacks did occur on Feb 4 and are being attributed to "Syrian Attacks"

What exactly is not "Explicitly stated" here? Looks to me about as explicitly stated as it can get. What is "inconclusive" ? You are once again flimflamming to try and justify yourself.

If you're going to rest all your hopes on word games

These are YOUR word games sport … you're the one that started alleging lies, then switched to this imaginary "implication" routine. Which I think is an apparent attempt at deception, and nothing else.

Zam :p
#14916278
You didn't explicitly state that the OPCW was blaming the Syrian government, but the bolding of "OPCW" in your post and the use of the present tense for a months-old accusation by an unrelated body imply that the attribution was being done by the OPCW. Your selective quotation from the article ends immediately before the sentence that makes it clear that the OPCW "did not say which side in Syria's complex seven-year civil war was responsible". You did not say that it was the SOHR that had attributed the attacks to Syria's government - simply used the weasel words "are being attributed". You did not make it clear that the SOHR's accusation was made "at the time" of the attack. Need I go on?

A child could see what it is you're doing. Stop this babyish routine of playing dumb and feigning outrage that someone would dare impugn your integrity. Especially when you attack other users as "liars" with gay abandon. :|
User avatar
By Zamuel
#14916285
Heisenberg wrote:You didn't explicitly state - You did not say - You did not make it clear -

No, I made a very brief comment that did not lie or imply and refered the reader to the article itself. It seems that's a problem for you.

when you attack other users as "liars"

And your sour grapes about getting caught.

Zam
By skinster
#14916479




Zamuel wrote:You don't like the source? fine. But I did not lie about what the article says.


Yes you did. :D

Zamuel wrote:And your sour grapes about getting caught.


This is what projection looks like.
By Rich
#14916591
Seven years to retake the Capital. Seven years to retake the suburbs. Seven years for Assad to recapture the territory within five miles of the Presidential palace. Clear and unambiguous proof that Assad was hated by the majority of Syria's people. The deck was massively stacked in Assad's favour, In 1775 it was incredibly difficult for Britain to project its power across the Atlantic, but still Britain beat the rebels. It was only the full scale intervention of France, Spain and Holland that gave the US its independence. Assad on the other hand has trouble projecting his power five miles from the Presidential palace.

The rebel forces were built from scratch, had no air force, no armour to speak of and no serious heavy artillery. Yet still in this case it was the government that required the militaries of Iran and Russia to win. Plus the long established forces of Hezbollah. Yes the Arab rebels in Syria were terrorists, but they had massive, massive support from Syria's Sunni Muslim Arabs.

Its right to support Assad, but only because the rights of the Infidel minority over the rights of the Muslim majority. Its the same reason that we put the rights of Israeli Infidels over the rights of Palestinian Muslims.
By Atlantis
#14916594
Rich wrote:The deck was massively stacked in Assad's favour,


Syria has been under siege of the regime-changers for years. They have openly tried to topple Assad since 2006 and plans to overthrow him were drawn up in London and Washington probably as early as 2001. They have covertly sabotaged its economy and enticed sectarian hatred via their regional proxies.

The economy and the social fabric were under strain by more than 2 millions refugees from America's wars while the country suffered the worst drought in 900 years with 75% of farms failing and 85% of livestock dying between 2006 and 2011.

With Syria being attacked by the US, UK, France, Saudi Arabia, Turkey Qatar and Israel either directly and/or by dozens of their crazed Islamist proxy militias, with tens of billions worth of military hardware supplied to Jihadists drawn from all over World, how on Earth do you come to the conclusion that "the deck was massively stacked in Assad's favor"?

The Afghan regime crumbled under the Western-sponsored Mujaheddin despite massive Soviet support.

If the terrorists managed to hold on to suburbs of Damascus for so long, it means that the "butcher Assad" probably didn't use enough brutal force to dislocate them.

Other then the terrorists and their direct supporters, I can't see any Syrian seriously wanting the Islamists to replace Assad. There is obviously always discontent, especially during economic crisis, but that doesn't mean the people want to wage a regime-change war. There is nothing as fleeting as people's intentions. They want one thing today and something altogether different tomorrow.

To pin the justification for regime on such a fleeting notion as people's alleged intentions is ridiculous in the extreme. But that is of course exactly what seems to appeal most to @Rich. The crazier, the better.
User avatar
By Oxymoron
#14916815
skinster wrote:https://twitter.com/sahouraxo/status/998330683922812928




Oh bring it, IDF just needs an excuse to fucking finish this thing once and for all.
By skinster
#14916829
I think they had an excuse when the Syrian army lobbed missiles back at Israelis and forced thousands of Israelis in Syria's Golan Heights into bunkers. :D
User avatar
By Oxymoron
#14916834
skinster wrote:I think they had an excuse when the Syrian army lobbed missiles back at Israelis and forced thousands of Israelis in Syria's Golan Heights into bunkers. :D


Which hit absolutely nothing, or where shot down, After which Israel obliterated dozen of sites, and did not get intercepted or hit dirt.
What I was referring to was the" Palestinians " quote, which I take means the Syrian and Palestinians will attack Israel, which would be awesome and allow the IDF do get rid of this pesty enemy outright.
By skinster
#14916838
Oxymoron wrote:Which hit absolutely nothing, or where shot down


Only 4 of the 20 missiles were intercepted. The others hit a bunch of military sites and damages were reported. I posted pictures when it happened ITT. Enjoy. :D
User avatar
By Oxymoron
#14916846
skinster wrote:Only 4 of the 20 missiles were intercepted. The others hit a bunch of military sites and damages were reported. I posted pictures when it happened ITT. Enjoy. :D



Donkeys and Sand are not considered military targets in Israel, I know its difficult to comprehend as things are different in Caveastan.
  • 1
  • 161
  • 162
  • 163
  • 164
  • 165
  • 205

Any of you going to buy the Trump bible he's promo[…]

Moving the goalposts won't change the facts on th[…]

There were formidable defense lines in the Donbas[…]

World War II Day by Day

March 28, Thursday No separate peace deal with G[…]