The problem with the first point is mostly that you expect a complicated world full of many people with very different motivations to be explainable in a very simple way. 100%, the White Helmets are neither all jihadis nor all good samaritans. They seem closer to the latter though and there being some dissembling would not prove otherwise.

As to the second point 'moderate' is a pretty meaningless term. Surely not all those identified as rebels are jihadis, but I was thinking more specifically of the PYD/SDF. They are not jihadis, NATO, Russian, or regime.

Ordering someone to do research is not how it's done around here. You provide a reputable citation, and you provide an answer to the question you posed, assuming it has any basis in factual reality.

I know you were, it's pedantic since they are nowhere near Damascus, it's not relevant to the point of establishing exactly who the 'rebels' are. The term 'Jihadists' is broad enough to encompass the alphabet soup of said groups, IS, Al-nusra, Al Qaeda, army of Islam, others no doubt. These are the Saudi+western allies funded opposition to parachute into a regime changed Damascus (in Washington's imagination). Yes you will get people around the militias who arent hardcore Jihadis, it's not relevant. What is the political ideology, objectives, funding, these are the questions to ask. It's like saying there are peaceniks in the British Army so you can't determine its character cos soldiers are all so different, makes no sense.

I have just told you who Le Mesurier is, he is a private contractor aka mercenary. It's not a point that needs citation because it's just simply established fact, he is a former officer of the British Army, heavily involved with blackwater security and other hit squads and special ops groups.

This is the guy who set up the white helmets. Not sure that was in the netflix film but would have made a better film no doubt.

Was there a chemical attack in 2017?

How should I interpret this

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/worl...as-mattis-says
Do the OPCW and the Pentagon share info?

I am very confused by the whole thing.

I posted this earlier in the thread

I should also point out the question in the link you posted refers specifically to 'Sarin'. Mattis acknowledges they've used Chlorine gas

The flow of money isn't the entire story. You probably know Thom Hartmann. I don't think he's a Russian stooge, but Russia wants to push a lot of the same stuff he does, so they support him. He shouldn't allow himself to be in this position imo, but he's not a puppet. The White Helmets draw attention to Syrian government atrocities. The rebels fight the Syrian regime. The Saudis support all things anti-Assad largely a proxy for Iran. Some money and even some infiltration doesn't necessarily mean the whole thing is a sham.

You're probably closer to right than 57 on red though who wants lots more brilliant RAF raids whenever he can have them.

not heard of Hartmann, seems too sensible took a look on youtube there. If I'm going to watch an American it will be Jimmy Dore, informing and entertaining in equal measure.
Anybody claiming Russian stooge yadadayayaada cos Russia picks up some anti-neo-con and anti-neo-liberal narratives (for obvious reasons), or that because I watch some RT (like the excellent cross talks) I get paid by Putin, is just dumb.

Just discovered this excellent resource which has no doubt had a hatchet job done against it by moronic washington and London patsies. Whatever, I prefer to judge on the strength of the argument. Some interesting stuff about the white helmets and the British Army establishment turned mercenary white helmets founder Le Mesurier and the links to black ops groups Blackwater/Olive Group.
http://21stcenturywire.com/2015/10/2...eption-part-1/

Thom Hartmann broadcasts on RT.

Jimmy Dore is ok. Not that funny. He broadcasts live pretty often near me. I may go see him one of these days.

"Strength of argument" is not the issue in any of this. You and 57 can come up with consistent arguments. The problem is with facts, uncertainty and trying to force a lot of different storylines into a straightforward narrative.

I like Jimmy Dore but his Syria segments aren't his finest work. In this recent vid I don't see anything amounting to "proof", and 20sec in he quotes the Daily Mail as supporting evidence.

You could tell when my grandmother had been reading the daily mail because she turned into a vicious xenophobe. This doesn't mean everything in it is tosh and shouldn't be used as a source. I am genuinely shocked by the coverage in the guardian at the minute, just outright lies and contradictions, they are just pushing an agenda with no regard for standards, the warmongers gazette as hitchens calls it, I have a lot of respect for Peter hitchens now and I never thought I'd say that. He is honest, he may be against abortion for instance but at least he's consistent. People who are just dismissing arguments on the basis of the network/paper are being incredibly silly.

Here's hitchens taking apart not one, not two, but three liberal warmongers from the right and 'left'

That the Daily Mail said something doesn't mean it can't be true, but to me it does not add anything to the probability of said thing being true, so I don't count it as evidence. When I see someone cite the DM I perceive it as if they unwittingly cited the Onion.

Tom, does it bother you that Russia is controlling where the media can go in Syria (and directing them to places the attack didn't happen), and preventing investigators for doing their job? Why do you think they're doing those things if not to hide the crime done by the regime? Take a look at this article from today in the Intercept. It's almost like Mackey read this thread and wrote that in response to you.

It was the Syrians and Russians which requested the investigation. The reason they are stuck is due to gunshots, the UN will not put staff at risk. It is up to journalists whether they put themselves at risk. Fisk was in the same hospital where the attack took place, a doctor told him there was an attack, but it was a conventional bomb. He was accused of working with the regime, this is a lie as anybody who has followed him during his career will know. Russia is ofc going to spin things in their favour. If there was a chemical weapon used it was not Assad's army. There is no strategic reason to do so, he is bad but not dumb.

The white helmets are a front for Jihadist groups ie head chopping gangs. Try Vanessa Beeley instead who has investigated and written and spoken extensively about them. They were set up by a known british mercenary ie. A private army doing black ops in Iraq and elsewhere, Le Mesurier was active in he NATO ops in Kosovo etc also. Funded via the UK foreign office and others, and Saudi money as well who apparently tried to bribe Roger Waters from pink Floyd to promote them as one of their token celebs. Why is this information not being talked about? BS propaganda Netflix films lol. Believe what you want but you are being had. Remember Iraq and that WMD ****e, same thing.

What you need to ask yourself is, and bearing in mind the important thing for us here in the west is holding our own govt to account as they do things in our name and for the supposed good of the people:
Assuming Assad has used chemical weapons would they go and bomb 3 sites to stop him for the reason of protecting the Syrian people? The answer has to be no for the simple reason that they haven't bombed Riyadh or Jerusalem for war crimes.

The other problem is what happens if Assad actually goes down? I think the Alawites would become victims of genocide. If that happens do we intervene again except this time for the other side?

This reply is mainly for others in the thread (given I posted it in the UK politics) one.

But this shows that Fisk is definitely involved with the regime

https://pulsemedia.org/2016/12/03/ro...st-journalism/


And with regards to Vanessa Beeley someone posted a link recently (Boids?) with a BBC article about dodgy twitter accounts pushing conspiracy theories and, unsurprisingly, this is one of the accounts discussed

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-43745629

LOL. Human Rights Watch isn't some fringe group. It is widely acknowledged and quoted as a reputable source for information on human rights abuses. And like most non-profit organizations, it is funded by a bunch of different people with varying political views.

Is the same true of your source?

No, I don't believe for a second that the US' war in Syria is about helping Syrians (nor do I agree with being in Syria). However, that has nothing to do with whether these gas attacks were real and carried out by the Assad regime.

Pretty much what heehaw said.

Appropriate US policy on Syria = Highly debatable

Whether the Assad regime is deplorable and has used gas frequently = Not debatable

No. You are a fancier of foreign fascist dictators and you have correctly identified tomj as one of your kind. You are as deluded as tomj is.

No. You're a warmonger and probably a psychopath. I bet your house is not just full of war books, but swords and bullets and guns and pehaps some more gruesome trophies.

I'll just cut and paste my response which you never bothered to engage with cos it's 'tin foil hat'

The Ahmad piece is problematic:

Firstly he sets 'the context' by evidencing that it is the sovereign government that is responsible for the bulk of the violence. The true context is, as we know, far more complicated with human rights abuses on all sides in a multi faceted proxy war. Turks, Syrians, Americans, British, French, Russians and the myriad of Jihadist groups are at large. To ignore this for the sake of attacking Fisk isn't particularly honest.

Re the comment on the bombing of the Scottish ambulance Ahmad says

he heavily implies that the bombing was merited... Fisk’s allies are not facts but suggestion, insinuation and innuendo. His method is insidious and part of a pattern. It merits closer scrutiny.

Unfortunately we cannot scrutinise this at all because there is no link to the original.

Next he argues with regard to the perpetrators of Daraya massacre that Fisk spoke to 'a few frightened survivors' but misses out a key statement from Fisk

we could talk to civilians out of earshot of Syrian officials – in two cases in the security of their own homes

a very different emphasis to Ahmad's interpretation. Fisk's authenticity is precisely the occasional vagueness, Ahmad's firm insistence on the Syrian regime being largely to blame is much more suspect.

He puts much faith in a journalist Janine Di Giovanni claiming she had 'sneaked into Daraya disguised as a local and interviewed survivors without the intimidating presence of regime forces' and that 'human rights watch corroborated her report'. However in the Guardian article linked there is no such claim that she sneaked in disguised, and

According to Human Rights Watch (HRW), which has interviewed Daraya residents and analysed satellite images of the battle, evidence points towards government responsibility for the killings, although it is not clear whether uniformed men or the shabiha militia carried out the killings after the town was bombed by helicopters and shelled.

So who is corroborating who and who did the interviews? I cannot find anything about the Daraya massacre on the HRW website. There is nothing in the piece which shows regime forces responsible for the massacre. This is not to say they weren't, but it certainly does not 'quickly set the record straight' as Ahmad claims. In the other Guardian links there are lots of interviews done by Skype. make of that what you will.
Re the rest of it, havent got time now but I can safely say this guy is looking rather suspect.


That stuff about Vanessa Beeley is just a very bad smear. I will post some stuff later, there is quite a bit.

And BTW a conspiracy theory is one in which the lines between fact and speculation are blurred which is precisely the motivation for bombing Syria recently "alleged, likely, points towards" in other words made up.

Exactly there is no plan for after regime change, same with Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya. Just put the salaafi Jihadists in and sit back and watch Cambodia killing fields scale factor 10.

OK ill take your word for it since their website is sketchy on the details. That particular article is a travesty however.