Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...
Moderator: PoFo Middle-East Mods
You have not been able to prove any time the Syrian government used chemical weapons on its own people because it didn't happen.
wat0n wrote:That's not what the OCPW report to the UN reads, since you believe in the latter when it suits you, your refusal to believe in it now just highlights your double standards.
skinster wrote:From the horse's mouth - an OPCW inspector:
The initial report to the UN was the one that was "manipulated", "distorted", etc., according to OPCW whistleblowers, i.e. staff from the OPCW who were forced to lie to support the argument you're trying to make, very poorly, I might add.
But please, go ahead and prove the time the Syrian government used chemical weapons on their own people at the exact time they invited weapons inspectors to prove they didn't have any chemical weapons after the ones they'd given up to Western powers right before the war on the country.
JohnRawls wrote:OPCW had several reports on Syria because there has been several "Incidents". I can't be sure to claim that Syrian government wasn't involved with them and perhaps the few accidents before the actual war started or in the beginning of it were the fault of the Syrian government. For that, Syria agreed to disarm with Europe, Russia and US involved.
The reports/events after that came mostly at times when Assad was seriously winning and had no real reason to use Chemical weapons so i call them BS. On top of their being a lot of physical evidence and videos showing them to be faked to a large degree. OPCW seriously discredited itself with the whole Syrian situation. It felt like it was being used as a political tool to put pressure on Assad when he was winning left and right and they only have themselves to blame for this since they stepped outside of their main goal: To prevent and limit the spread of chemical weapons while being apolitical.
wat0n wrote:What does this have to do with the incidents in Tarmenes and Sarmin? He didn't refer to those.
Are you going to stop the red herrings and simply admit the evident double standard when it comes to citing the UN as a source of factual evidence?
The attacks I mentioned above took place in Idlib, an area that even today is not under the Syrian Government's control.
Of course, the OPCW doesn't have the subpoena powers of an actual judicial prosecutor or anything like that. They can't follow leads where there are suspicions of tampering with evidence either. So I don't take them as the final word, just as it happens with other similar organizations that lack these powers - but some people do when it suits them, and I'm calling them out on it.
skinster wrote:What happened at these places? I thought you were talking about Douma. There's been a number of attacks / staged attacks, it's hard to keep up.
skinster wrote:I don't give a fuck about the UN, I mentioned them as one reporting org on something relating to Palestine years ago that you trawled this board to find, and now keep going on about them like I give a fuck.
skinster wrote:You claimed the Syrian government is responsible for using chemical weapons on its own people and I'm asking you to prove when that happened. That's where all this started from. And now we're doing that boring dance that you think helps you hone your arguments, but in fact makes you look increasingly like a troll.
skinster wrote:Which year?
Considering who was in control of Idlib for most of the war and who have been caught staging attacks, it might be the Islamists who were controlling Idlib responsible for this one, rather than the Syrian government, who btw it makes no sense to attack its own civilians while defending itself from the proxy war.
skinster wrote:The OPCW spoke about distortions in engineer reports, manipulating evidence and there being months-long dissent within the org because of these things, and trying to fix evidence around allegations, like what happened with Iraqi WMDs. These whistleblowers ended up revealing what they actually found, which didn't fit under ASSAD DID IT. Your claim. That you are yet to prove.
wat0n wrote:I've said plenty of times I was not. I was referring to the attacks claimed in the OPCW's letter to the UN on the matter sent two years before the alleged Douma attack.
Yeah, you don't give a fuck about it because it doesn't suit you anymore.
Using your past "believe the UN" standard, why wouldn't one believe so?
Read the extract from the letter (or, if you want, all of it).
skinster wrote:So which ones in Idlib are you referring to? Do you have an article on those?
skinster wrote:No, because I didn't use the UN as a be-all-and-end-all source like you keep claiming. I mentioned them once, alongside others who reported on Israeli war crimes and you trawled through my posts from years ago to find that as some kind of gotcha.
skinster wrote:That wasn't my standard. Read above. But you don't want to, because you're doing this dance again where you think you're honing your skills of debate. LOL.
skinster wrote:Which letter?
skinster wrote:It's not, but since you dance around so much, it gets boring and therefore, hard to keep up. Which results in the repeated questions in wtf you're talking about, which gets more dancing.
Let me know when you found your evidence for the SAA using chemical weapons against their people. Your initial claim that is yet to be proven, because of all the boring dancing that apparently helps you hone your ability to argue...something.
skinster wrote:I'm not asking about alleged, I'm asking for that which is proven / evidence to support your position that the Syrian army was running around bombing its people with chemical weapons that it gave up right before the war, at a time it was winning the war, in an area that was controlledl by Jihadi orgs like Al Nusra, ISIL etc.
Let me know when you have that evidence for those claims that this debate began from.
skinster wrote:You have presented no evidence for your original claim that the SAA used chemical weapons on Syrian civilians...in now, Idlib, an area under control of Al-Nusra, ISIL etc.
Let me know when you have that evidence and also maybe share why you're shilling for al-Nusra.
skinster wrote:Imagine spending hours claiming the SAA was responsible for using chemical weapons it didn't have on its own civilians at a time it had basically won the war,
skinster wrote: and then deflecting from that claim constantly, thinking people can't see the deflections for what they are, read and comprehend the English language, on an English language political forum, and be aware you're full of shit. Not for raced-based reasons, but for "honing" your arguments reasons.
What makes you believe it is any different? The[…]
And China is a major, important country in the wo[…]
You've done nothing except talk down to me. I to[…]
Well this is conjecture and I suspect not even cl[…]