[Heisenberg]

Macron is claiming that he has "proof" that Syria carried out a chemical attack in Douma, but rather absurdly, says that a French military response will come "once we have verified all the information".

So, in other words, France does not in fact have proof that Syria carried out a chemical attack in Douma.

Disgracefully, the BBC's version of the same article omits the second quote. In case anyone was wondering why a lot of us deride the BBC, it's because of stuff like that.

[One Degree]

I am taking bets. If Trump takes the bait and takes any action, the world wide liberal media will be filled with
“Civilian deaths by Trump’s actions”. This whole thing is a political set up. It is so unbelievable, they know no one will believe it. Wait for the seismic shift in the media narrative.

[Heisenberg]

I really doubt it. Western media have a blind spot when it comes to civilian deaths caused by Western forces, and the Democrats are currently in full-on War Party mode because of their obsession with Russia.

For example, last year, there was a relentless, pious media chorus on civilian deaths caused by Russian air strikes in Aleppo, but little or no discussion of civilian deaths in Mosul (which the USAF bombed to the ground) until well after the battle was over. Because Western air strikes, uniquely among aerial interventions in densely-populated urban conflicts, do not cause civilian deaths.

[Zamuel]

Macron is claiming that he has "proof" that Syria carried out a chemical attack in Douma, but rather absurdly, says that a French military response will come "once we have verified all the information".

So, in other words, France does not in fact have proof that Syria carried out a chemical attack in Douma.

This is a silly semantics argument that is quite possibly a matter of poor translation. Proof = Evidence. Responsibly it's acknowledged that "verification" is underway. I agree, omitting the second point is misleading. But that can easily an error of editing. It should be corrected, but not condemned, unless you have verified "proof" that it was malicious?

Maybe you're trying to hard (but I can't prove that.)

[Heisenberg]

Proof = Evidence

No, proof is most definitely not the same as evidence. Evidence can be used to establish proof, but it is not the same thing.

Why would the BBC omit a quote containing pertinent information, when it had otherwise faithfully copied the original Reuters article? Especially when the omitted section actually involves an admission that the alleged "proof" is not, in fact, "proof" at all? A point that is damaging to the BBC's lust for military intervention?

An "error of editing" doesn't cut it, I'm afraid.

[Zamuel]

No, proof is most definitely not the same as evidence. Evidence can be used to establish proof, but it is not the same thing.

Depends on if you want to interpret it formally or casually, if you know the difference between those points of view. You, I can see, have an axe to grind and will insist on whatever suits your purpose. That I think is easily discernable.

Why would the BBC omit a quote containing pertinent information, when it had otherwise faithfully copied the original Reuters article?

Editors are people too, space and time in journalism are at a premium, editors are paid to conserve them ... and if you had any experience of the publication process you'd know - every editor feels compelled to alter something ... it justifies their existence.

An "error of editing" doesn't cut it, I'm afraid.

>>Evidently<< not when you don't want it to.

Zam

[Heisenberg]

You, I can see, have an axe to grind and will insist on whatever suits your purpose. That I think is easily discernable.

I'm sorry, have we ever crossed paths on this forum?

Editors are people too, space and time in journalism are at a premium, editors are paid to conserve them ... and if you had any experience of the publication process you'd know - every editor feels compelled to alter something ... it justifies their existence.

1. It's an online article, so space is not of the essence.
2. I am a journalist, so your attempt to patronise me is well wide of the mark.

A major national broadcaster - particularly one established and protected by charter - should report things fairly and accurately. Particularly when it is explicitly required to be impartial under the terms of its charter.

Excluding a pertinent quote from a public appearance by a major world leader discussing an issue as important as committing a country to war is an abdication of that responsibility, and I am sure you can see that. Instead, you're playing word games rather than addressing the issue.

[Zamuel]

2. I am a journalist, so your attempt to patronise me is well wide of the mark.

1. Then act like one!
2. "Copyboy" is not a journalist, neither is "I have a blog."

A major national broadcaster - particularly one established and protected by charter - should report things fairly and accurately.

And generally they do, no one's perfect. Any "Journalist" should know that copy picked up from another source is paid for, by the word, column inch, or in entirety. This is also an editorial consideration ... Give me a source for this BBC story, I'd like to evaluate it.

Zam

[Heisenberg]

1. Then act like one!

...You mean, by reviewing the way a story was reported by two separate sources and commenting on a glaring omission of pertinent information in one of them?

2. "Copyboy" is not a journalist, neither is "I have a blog."

This is the first time we've ever interacted, and you know literally nothing about me. Where is this ridiculous hostility coming from?

Any "Journalist" should know that copy picked up from another source is paid for, by the word, column inch, or in entirety. This is also an editorial consideration ... Give me a source for this BBC story, I'd like to evaluate it.

I gave links to both in the original post, that you took great offence at for some reason. As the ever so diligent monument to journalistic ethics that you claim to be, I'm sure you can make the effort to click a couple of links and read them.

But anyway, do you have anything at all to say on the actual topic, or should I just expect more childish sniping? I note that while you've been very high and mighty in this exchange, you've said nothing whatsoever about Syria.

[Zamuel]

OK... I found your disguised url and guess what ... you lied. You said this was "The BBC version of the same article" it's not. It's completely independent report of the French announcement. It contains a lot more information and background. You lied, you misled, you call that responsible journalism? What should be done with someone like you? (they'll probably make you an editor.) Go apply to Fox News!

Disgracefully, the BBC version of the same article omits the second quote.

Given your bias, this misrepresentation appears malicious. And your emphasis on the word omits is almost fallacious. You have suggested that the BBC excluded a statement from "the same article." That they intentionally removed reference to a vital fact. Nothing of the sort occurred.

Shame, shame, shame and enough is enough ... So much for self proclaimed journalists ... once upon a time I was an accredited journalist and your actions sicken me.

Zam

[Heisenberg]

I "sicken" you, do I? Get your head out of your arse.

Given your bias, this misrepresentation appears malicious. And your emphasis on the word omits is almost fallacious. You have suggested that the BBC excluded a statement from "the same article." That they intentionally removed reference to a vital fact. Nothing of the sort occurred.

Do you have an alternative explanation for why the BBC did not publish Macron's full remarks, given that the difference amounts to about one line of text and the omitted quote (it is omitted, since it was left out of the article even though the writer must have been aware he said it) contains pertinent information that undermines Macron's claim to have "proof" of a Syrian chemical attack?

Or are you feeling too sickened to address the topic? I notice you have form for drive-by attacks on random posters' character as a substitute for discussing issues.

[Zamuel]

I am taking bets. If Trump takes the bait and takes any action, the world wide liberal media will be filled with “Civilian deaths by Trump’s actions”. This whole thing is a political set up. It is so unbelievable, they know no one will believe it. Wait for the seismic shift in the media narrative.

You've been pursuing this slant and I've been following it. I'm sure you're right, but not so sure it's as extensive as you seem to think. I think there's more to it and that Bolton may have a hand in recent attitudes ... I doubt civilian casualties concern him.

I do think the military will be very careful in their targeting, apprehensive of causing collateral damage.

I'm still waiting for verification of culpability and I'm happy to see the French are too.

Zam

[One Degree]

You've been pursuing this slant and I've been following it. I'm sure you're right, but not so sure it's as extensive as you seem to think. I think there's more to it and that Bolton may have a hand in recent attitudes ... I doubt civilian casualties concern him.

I do think the military will be very careful in their targeting, apprehensive of causing collateral damage.

I'm still waiting for verification of culpability and I'm happy to see the French are too.

Zam

I don’t really claim to know anything. I find the idea of conspiracy revolting to my idealism. Reality has been reminding me for 70 years that political corruption is always worse than I thought. You don’t even need to believe in a cabal. Just a bunch of like minded people pushing in a direction totally oblivious to the consequences or who they hurt. They want what they want period.

[Zamuel]

You don’t even need to believe in a cabal. Just a bunch of like minded people pushing in a direction totally oblivious to the consequences or who they hurt. They want what they want period.

Yeah. And it's been my experience that when you have such a group, someone will be herding them.

Zam

[skinster]

[layman]

There is no coherent strategy and no point in hiding it.

You cannot of course believe both this and that it’s about a pipeline or whatever.

I just think these people feel they need to do something and default to a cold thinking because it’s all they know.

Sometimes nothing is better than something. I’m with Corbyn on this one.

[redcarpet]

No doubt like with Iraq's WMD it's based on 'intelligence' from defectors in exchange for millions of dollars with warnings by the interrogators they don't believe them on the reports!

[Atlantis]

The former British ambassador to Syria, Peter Ford, believes that the news of a chemical attack in Douma is based entirely on reports from Islamist militants fighting Assad. He advises against risking war with Russia on such biased information.

[Heisenberg]

The rebel group in Douma at the time of the alleged attack was a coalition of heart-eating jihadists vegan, LGBT-friendly social democrats known as The Sword of Islam, who have themselves been accused of using mortar shells containing chlorine gas on Kurdish civilians in the past.

They are perhaps most famous for locking civilians in cages and using them as human shields. Who are we to doubt the veracity of their claims?

[Rich]

There is no coherent strategy

Not for many politicans I'm sure. But for the arch Zionist manipulators who tip the scales of western foreign policy, there is a very coherent strategy. They hate Hezbollah and they hate Iran, so when Assad is winning they want him attacked. But they feared any sort of half way moderate Sunni Arab regime more. It should be noted that defeating the so called moderate Sunni Arab factions / groups was also Saudi Arabia's overriding priority. If any one was nieve it was Erdogan, imagining that the Israelis and the Saudis would ever allow a victory by the Muslim Brotherhood and related / similar factions.

Look what happened to Qatar. Oh no having got rid of the Muslim Brotherhood from Egypt they weren't about to allow them or similar minded groups to take power in Syria. I'm not accusing Israel of perpetrating this latest false flag attack. No this was done by Sunni Muslims. Israel didn't create ISIS, Israel didn't create Al Qaeda. Israel didn't create Hamas, although they did nurture they're growth in the vital early years. No all of these evils were created by Muslims.

Israel does not control every western politician, but they control / lead enough to tip the scales of western foreign policy when it matters. So for example after the first false chemical flag attack, the Republican Zionist Congress members told Obama in no uncertain terms that if he bombed Syria they would ruthlessly attack him it led to a Sunni jihadi victory. They would make sure he owned Syria. Of course that didn't stop the hypocrites later blaming Obama for being weak and not bombing.